More rides on this win/loss than it appears

[Verdict]

From what I understand our schedule is set with the exception of 2 games. If we win the Giants game we will play a teams in 2nd place in two other divisions. If we lose we would probably play two 3rd place teams. If we win we would probably play the Vikings next year, but if we lose we get Detriot. I dont want to lose this one on purpose, but playing the Vikes (Moss & Culpepper) seems a lot tougher than Detroit.

If YOU were in charge would you slide this game more toward the loss column?

[JDSmith]

I think the schedule aspect is irrevelent. Nobody knows which teams will be good or bad next year anyway. The Lions could easily be better than the Vikes, there is simply no way to know one way or the other. Also, if we make the improvements we should, it may not matter which of them is better.

[Tuna Helper]

From what I understand our schedule is set with the exception of 2 games. If we win the Giants game we will play a teams in 2nd place in two other divisions. If we lose we would probably play two 3rd place teams. If we win we would probably play the Vikings next year, but if we lose we get Detriot. I dont want to lose this one on purpose, but playing the Vikes (Moss & Culpepper) seems a lot tougher than Detroit.

If YOU were in charge would you slide this game more toward the loss column?

I would be more concerned about draft positioning instead.

[joseephuss]

Red McCombs is looking to sell the Vikings. This could cause them to be very limited in the free agency market to keep costs down and make the team more attractive for potential buyers. This in turn could prevent them from improving their team.

Detroit will probably be active in free agency and could greatly improve their team for next season.

No way of truly knowing which teams will be tougher to play next season at this point. There are too many factors to consider.

[Hostile]

Red McCombs is looking to sell the Vikings. This could cause them to be very limited in the free agency market to keep costs down and make the team more attractive for potential buyers. This in turn could prevent them from improving their team.

Detroit will probably be active in free agency and could greatly improve their team for next season.

No way of truly knowing which teams will be tougher to play next season at this point. There are too many factors to consider.You know, that is truly a great point.

[Dale]

I think the schedule aspect is irrevelent. Nobody knows which teams will be good or bad next year anyway. The Lions could easily be better than the Vikes, there is simply no way to know one way or the other. Also, if we make the improvements we should, it may not matter which of them is better.

Exactly. If Harrington can develop, with Charlie Rogers returning from injury plus potent players like Kevin Jones and Roy Williams, Detroit could very well be a team no one wants to play next season.

Playing to lose at off chance we can play an inferior opponent or two next season is a terrible menality. And if our head coach was of such a persuasion, I'd be very concerned about the direction and foundation of this franchise.

It's one things for fans or media to speculate about. Our ponderings matter little in all this. But those inside the organization need to focus on winning.

I beleive it was Adam who made this point a few days ago. We often wonder if it'd be better to lose so the team could have a higher draft position. As he, if I recall correctly, stated, teams that know how to draft will acquire good players regardless of their draft position. Meanwhile, organizations like Arizona, who routinely draft high, continually blow picks.

Losing breeds losing. I'm a firm believer in that. That's why I hope we win Sunday. I'd rather this be a team one game away from .500 than a team one game away from the Campo Era. Granted, it has little meaning at this stage, but the fewer losses the better in my book.

[billknows]

Not even a good post...

It is not advantatious for a team to lose for any possible gain.there is only a rare circumstance that it benefits and that itself is debatable. as much as it pained me Bill should have played Vinny last week. Did it go unnoticed that Jerry said it was verry Important to beat washington and Little danny.We all know that vinny is worn out due to the long season but our coach still thinks he's our best chance to win. So we play Vinny and beat those sorry skins.That was a pro coach making the call, and it worked,(I personally could not stand to lose to to the Skins ,even if it means Drew has to wait on the sidelines a nother year. ,most rookies do ya know) And we again need to kick The Giants a** any way our coach thinks is our best chance. As painful as it is to see Drew waiting ,beating a divisinal rival is allways in our best intrest and thats life and thats Right.We will benifit in the long run and Drew is gaining experience with every game sideline or not ..Fu%K the Skins come on Eli.......

I still think Bill Knows ..Stay healthy Milk Jones

[Dale]

Not even a good post...

It is not advantatious for a team to lose for any possible gain.there is only a rare circumstance that it benefits and that itself is debatable. as much as it pained me Bill should have played Vinny last week. Did it go unnoticed that Jerry said it was verry Important to beat washington and Little danny.We all know that vinny is worn out due to the long season but our coach still thinks he's our best chance to win. So we play Vinny and beat those sorry skins.That was a pro coach making the call, and it worked,(I personally could not stand to lose to to the Skins ,even if it means Drew has to wait on the sidelines a nother year. ,most rookies do ya know) And we again need to kick The Giants a** any way our coach thinks is our best chance. As painful as it is to see Drew waiting ,beating a divisinal rival is allways in our best intrest and thats life and thats Right.We will benifit in the long run and Drew is gaining experience with every game sideline or not ..Fu%K the Skins come on Eli.......

I still think Bill Knows ..Stay healthy Milk Jones

See, I agree. I hate seeing Vinny still out there starting for this team. I absolutely do. But I think it's difficult for a coach like Parcells to stress winning, and then sacrifice that very thing the first time an opportunity comes to build for the future.

The players see Romo, Henson and Testaverde practice every day, and none of the players have come out to publicly support another quarterback replacing Vinny. While they could all be "biased" toward Vinny, I think it's a reflection they realize the other two guys simply aren't ready to be full-time starters. While Vinny is a bad quarterback at this stage, one at least knows what he offers. While it sounds like blasphemy, it is indeed possible that a rookie quarterback who has been away from the game for three years could be worse. Crazy, I know.

If the players knew Vinny was the superior quarterback based on his play in practice, only to see Parcells promote another guy due to "potential," they'd likely revolt. It reminds me of the very thing that occurred in Campo's second season when the team released Banks to see what they had in Carter. I think that move helped lead to the fall of a lot of people. Instead of being patient and letting him develop, the decision was made for an already suspect head coach to go into battle with an unprepared second-round pick. And insurmountable amount of pressure was placed on all the involved parties. Sure, rookie quarterbacks often start, but Quincy Carter wasn't Troy Aikman coming out of college. He was a raw kid with unpolished ability that needed some refining and time to progress mentally and physically with the game.

I think if Bill, or the players, saw something in practice to suggest one of the other quarterbacks should start, Vinny would be on a fast track to the sideline. Parcells is in the business of winning, not starting Vinny at all costs.

While the backup quarterback is always the most popular man in town, Romo would not have made this team if not for Carter's release and Henson was originally not expected to play at all this season. I think people tend to forget those things when clamoring for them to start because "they can't be worse."

Parcells is far from perfect, but he's right that regular season games aren't a trial run. Carson Palmer, in my opinion, earned the right to start because at some point he probably illustrated enough talent and progression in practice to make Marvin Lewis believe it was the correct move for the current and long-term interest of the Bengals. I firmly believe Parcells has yet to see such progression or ability out of our backups, and nor should he have considering their status. If he did, I think they'd be in there. Parcells ain't blind; he knows Testaverde is a flawed quarterback.

[SuspectCorner]

i don't like the vikings. i hope dallas wins sunday night and gets minny on the schedule for next season. i wanna see dallas kick the vike's tail-lights in. cowboys owe them a few. make it happen.

[Next_years_Champs]

See, I agree. I hate seeing Vinny still out there starting for this team. I absolutely do. But I think it's difficult for a coach like Parcells to stress winning, and then sacrifice that very thing the first time an opportunity comes to build for the future.

The players see Romo, Henson and Testaverde practice every day, and none of the players have come out to publicly support another quarterback replacing Vinny. While they could all be "biased" toward Vinny, I think it's a reflection they realize the other two guys simply aren't ready to be full-time starters. While Vinny is a bad quarterback at this stage, one at least knows what he offers. While it sounds like blasphemy, it is indeed possible that a rookie quarterback who has been away from the game for three years could be worse. Crazy, I know.

If the players knew Vinny was the superior quarterback based on his play in practice, only to see Parcells promote another guy due to "potential," they'd likely revolt. It reminds me of the very thing that occurred in Campo's second season when the team released Banks to see what they had in Carter. I think that move helped lead to the fall of a lot of people. Instead of being patient and letting him develop, the decision was made for an already suspect head coach to go into battle with an unprepared second-round pick. And insurmountable amount of pressure was placed on all the involved parties. Sure, rookie quarterbacks often start, but Quincy Carter wasn't Troy Aikman coming out of college. He was a raw kid with unpolished ability that needed some refining and time to progress mentally and physically with the game.

I think if Bill, or the players, saw something in practice to suggest one of the other quarterbacks should start, Vinny would be on a fast track to the sideline. Parcells is in the business of winning, not starting Vinny at all costs.

While the backup quarterback is always the most popular man in town, Romo would not have made this team if not for Carter's release and Henson was originally not expected to play at all this season. I think people tend to forget those things when clamoring for them to start because "they can't be worse."

Parcells is far from perfect, but he's right that regular season games aren't a trial run. Carson Palmer, in my opinion, earned the right to start because at some point he probably illustrated enough talent and progression in practice to make Marvin Lewis believe it was the correct move for the current and long-term interest of the Bengals. I firmly believe Parcells has yet to see such progression or ability out of our backups, and nor should he have considering their status. If he did, I think they'd be in there. Parcells ain't blind; he knows Testaverde is a flawed quarterback.


Parcells is in the business of winning, not starting Vinny at all costs.

I really don't understand why that idea is so completely impossible for some people to grasp.

[Outlaw Heroes]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.

[joseephuss]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.

I agree with you especially considering how poorly the QB play has been over the last several weeks. I would be okay with seeing Vinny at QB if he had produced average numbers over the last few games played, but he has not. His playing has fallen off. Not bashing the guy, but he has a QB rating of about 59 or so since the return of Julius. That is well below average. I think the drop off to Romo or Henson would not be that bad under these circumstances.

[JDSmith]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.
There have been plenty of people here who have felt it would be in our best interest to simply play the young QBs and take our lumps now, even at the expense of wins. Especially when the odds were very good that we'd finish below 500 either way. But that wasn't the question posed here. Verdict wondered if it would be beneficial to lose simply for the sake of playing a 'weaker' team next year - when in fact there is simply no way to predict which teams will be good or bad from year to year, thereby invalidating any argument for attempting to adjust next year's schedule by losing tomorrow. Plenty of people understand that you have to make some sacrifices this year for the sake of the future, but the coach isn't one of them. He simply wants to win games this year.

[Next_years_Champs]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.

And there is the cause of my dilemma, One one hand I have a Super Bowl winning, Hall of Fame coach who has been hired to rebuild this franchise. He has done the same at previous locations and left behind teams and operations which are still successful.

Then I have a number of fans on a forum who insist they know more about building for the future than someone who has done it at three different locations before. Frankly the choice on who to believe for me is a no brainer.

First I don't believe Bill Parcells would ever put one players interest ahead of the teams interest nor would he be so foolish as to think one player is the answer to this teams problems.

I say Bill Parcells knows full well how to plan for the future in his personal life as well as his professional life, because his track record is right there for everyone to see, As is his commitment to winning. The thing is that I'm a older fan and have watched football for over 50 years, I have seen quarterbacks come and go. I've seen them put in right away and I've seen them be given the time to learn from the bench.

And you kinow what? I have never heard anyone say that this QB or that QB would have been a good player but the coaches made him set on the bench too long and ruined his career. However; there are many examples of ruining QBs by starting them too soon.

I'll tell you what I think, I think when Parcells says Henson isn't ready. He's saying it because he knows Henson hasn't seen and wouldn't be ready for what the defense will throw at him. I think Parcells (being the only pro coach Henson has ever had) would know that type of information.

And it is very reasonable to think that by protecting your future QB until he and the team is ready is planning for the future, After all you don't exactly teach your children to cross the street by throwing them into traffic.

You see that's where I don't buy into you train of thought, I don't agree fans know the situation better than Parcells. And I don't agree that Parcells is starting Testaverde out of some crush or vendetta. Parcells knows Henson is a season or two away from being what you people seem to think he is and he's not going to start him until the team can give him the support he will need no matter what a bunch of incognito fans think.

I think Parcells is planning for the future he just has more experience and current knowledge of the situation than you do.

[Juke99]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.


On the Nosey.....especially, when one of the positions the team needs to evaluate, QB, will now be an unknown going into next season. The coach himself has often stated that you can't evaluate a QB from what you see in practice only. And playing one of the kids at this stage isn't going to provide much information for evaluation. The game tomorrow means zilch.

AND let's not forget, it's Parcells who created the framework that stated, playing one of the young QB's would be the equivalent of giving up on the season...well, if the COACH states that, of course the players would mail it in. Parcells should NEVER have stated as much to begin with...but in spite of the fact that the rest of the organization has a gag order, Parcells just LOVES to hear himself talk...Geeez, do I miss Landry and his professionalism.

There are times when a change at QB might have sparked the team...there were games when VT was truly awful...there was NOTHING to lose by bringing in one of the kids at QB...

Sure, there was "Parcells speak" about ruining a young QB for his career. The fear of "losing" a young QB flies in the face of what Parcells has done to his QB's for years...namely, brutalizing them. If Henson or Romo run the risk of being lost for their entire career because Parcells played them too soon, then NEITHER one has the constitution to deal with Parcells wrath.

Thanksgiving was the turning point. That game was an evaluation bonanza waiting to happen. Henson had a tough first half...Parcells had a chance to see how Henson would react after halftime adjustments. Parcells had a chance to let Henson take a negative and turn it into a positive. But instead, he pulled the kid. For me, the season ended with that game.

The other thing that irks me is, who sez the team that he has kept on the field for most of the season gave us the best chance to win?

I think Parcells is, at times, hypocritical (and all one has to do is look at his track record to know he's not exactly a man of his word) He speaks of not wanting to sacrifice a game; a win. He has spoken of having a responsibility to the rest of the team to put the best team on the field.

He began the season with Eddie George as the starter while he played his mind games with Jones. Jones was cleary the better back from day one in pre season. BUT when Parcells sat him behind George to "instruct" the kid on life in the NFL, wasn't he in fact NOT putting the best guy on the field?

He kept Dedric Ward on the roster, while Crayton and Copper clearly provided a better upside...and 14 weeks into the season, his reason for this was that Ward knew all the WR positions. HUH? Exactly what had these kids been practicing for 14 weeks...I'm sure the WR coach knows all the positions too. Should he have been activated and put on the field?

Keith Davis sits because he only knows FS position. HUH? Exactly what have the coaches been doing with him while Dixon and Scott have stunk out the joint?

All this and MORE in the hot pursuit of a 7 win season.

Awful job by Parcells. Again, I've said it before, I'm not saying he won't turn it around next year...and I am not disparaging what he has achieved in the past...but this season, in and of itself, he has not done a good job.

Geez, that was a rant...first one of the year.

[SuspectCorner]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.
keep selling those losses, brother. maybe jones and parcells will catch your post and buy into the "logic". i guess i'm just one of the "short-sighted" who lack "life-management skills". GO COWBOYS!

[Juke99]

And there is the cause of my dilemma, One one hand I have a Super Bowl winning, Hall of Fame coach who has been hired to rebuild this franchise. He has done the same at previous locations and left behind teams and operations which are still successful.

Then I have a number of fans on a forum who insist they know more about building for the future than someone who has done it at three different locations before. Frankly the choice on who to believe for me is a no brainer.

First I don't believe Bill Parcells would ever put one players interest ahead of the teams interest nor would he be so foolish as to think one player is the answer to this teams problems.

I say Bill Parcells knows full well how to plan for the future in his personal life as well as his professional life, because his track record is right there for everyone to see, As is his commitment to winning. The thing is that I'm a older fan and have watched football for over 50 years, I have seen quarterbacks come and go. I've seen them put in right away and I've seen them be given the time to learn from the bench.

And you kinow what? I have never heard anyone say that this QB or that QB would have been a good player but the coaches made him set on the bench too long and ruined his career. However; there are many examples of ruining QBs by starting them too soon.

I'll tell you what I think, I think when Parcells says Henson isn't ready. He's saying it because he knows Henson hasn't seen and wouldn't be ready for what the defense will throw at him. I think Parcells (being the only pro coach Henson has ever had) would know that type of information.

And it is very reasonable to think that by protecting your future QB until he and the team is ready is planning for the future, After all you don't exactly teach your children to cross the street by throwing them into traffic.

You see that's where I don't buy into you train of thought, I don't agree fans know the situation better than Parcells. And I don't agree that Parcells is starting Testaverde out of some crush or vendetta. Parcells knows Henson is a season or two away from being what you people seem to think he is and he's not going to start him until the team can give him the support he will need no matter what a bunch of incognito fans think.

I think Parcells is planning for the future he just has more experience and current knowledge of the situation than you do.



As the man himself stated, "No matter who you are and what you've done in the past, at some point you have to prove you can still get the job done"

Using his own barometer, he's got some proving to do REGARDLESS of his past.

I'm not saying he isn't going to get it done...but sooner or later, everyone's performance deteriorates...players and coaches alike...this past season might be an abberation...it might not.

Next season will provide a good evaluation.

[Novacek84]

Parcells is obviously not a lose-on-purpose kind of guy. That is crystal clear by his decision not to play Henson this year. Besides, even as fans it's pointless to look at next year's schedule and say this team will be good, this team will be bad, etc. Case in point: at the start of this season who thought the Chargers and Steelers would be as good as they are and that the Titans and Chiefs would miss the playoffs? To try to predict how good a team will be next year can't be done due to injuries, schedule, when you play an opponent, etc. Just look at the Cowboys. I'm among those who said we probably would regress to 7-9 or 8-8 this year, but this is a bad 7-9. The 1990 Cowboys were an example of a good 7-9, a team which set the stage for '91's 11-5 finish and wild card win over Chicago.

[jimmy40]

And there is the cause of my dilemma, One one hand I have a Super Bowl winning, Hall of Fame coach who has been hired to rebuild this franchise. He has done the same at previous locations and left behind teams and operations which are still successful.

Then I have a number of fans on a forum who insist they know more about building for the future than someone who has done it at three different locations before. Frankly the choice on who to believe for me is a no brainer.

First I don't believe Bill Parcells would ever put one players interest ahead of the teams interest nor would he be so foolish as to think one player is the answer to this teams problems.

I say Bill Parcells knows full well how to plan for the future in his personal life as well as his professional life, because his track record is right there for everyone to see, As is his commitment to winning. The thing is that I'm a older fan and have watched football for over 50 years, I have seen quarterbacks come and go. I've seen them put in right away and I've seen them be given the time to learn from the bench.

And you kinow what? I have never heard anyone say that this QB or that QB would have been a good player but the coaches made him set on the bench too long and ruined his career. However; there are many examples of ruining QBs by starting them too soon.

I'll tell you what I think, I think when Parcells says Henson isn't ready. He's saying it because he knows Henson hasn't seen and wouldn't be ready for what the defense will throw at him. I think Parcells (being the only pro coach Henson has ever had) would know that type of information.

And it is very reasonable to think that by protecting your future QB until he and the team is ready is planning for the future, After all you don't exactly teach your children to cross the street by throwing them into traffic.

You see that's where I don't buy into you train of thought, I don't agree fans know the situation better than Parcells. And I don't agree that Parcells is starting Testaverde out of some crush or vendetta. Parcells knows Henson is a season or two away from being what you people seem to think he is and he's not going to start him until the team can give him the support he will need no matter what a bunch of incognito fans think.

I think Parcells is planning for the future he just has more experience and current knowledge of the situation than you do.Parcells has proven he can take teams to the playoffs in the salary cap era. Wow, that's as impressive as a Yao Ming dunk. Like I've said before, I'll drink the Parcells coolaid when he actually does domething here; win a Super Bowl. Until then he's just that fat bastid coach from the Giants.

[Juke99]

Oh, that's right, I forgot what this thread was about...

Detroit is on the upswing...I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between them and the Vikes...Mariucci has them moving in the right direction...I think the Lions will be a good team next year.

[Next_years_Champs]

As the man himself stated, "No matter who you are and what you've done in the past, at some point you have to prove you can still get the job done"

Using his own barometer, he's got some proving to do REGARDLESS of his past.

I'm not saying he isn't going to get it done...but sooner or later, everyone's performance deteriorates...players and coaches alike...this past season might be an abberation...it might not.

Next season will provide a good evaluation.

Well Parcells has said himself this season has been a big disappointment. I find that easy to understand its been a blow to all Cowboy fans.

And all of us are eventually going to lose it and fail to finish our goal, maybe Parcells has met his Waterloo like you said time will tell.

To me in retrospect last year was the fluke and gave fans a false impression of the talent or lack thereof on this teams roster. This team has addressed several of the critical areas but several still need answers.

Some of Parcells moves obviouly haven't worked out, while others have. But IMO we are still making progress when I don't feel that way then I'll probably want a change. But right now IMO most fans have underestimated the hole this franchise was in because of mis-management, and to do it right there really isn't a shortcut. This teams core has to be built through the draft and that will take time.

[Next_years_Champs]

Parcells has proven he can take teams to the playoffs in the salary cap era. Wow, that's as impressive as a Yao Ming dunk. Like I've said before, I'll drink the Parcells coolaid when he actually does domething here; win a Super Bowl. Until then he's just that fat bastid coach from the Giants.

Hey good for you???????????

[jimmy40]

Hey good for you???????????Yes, good for me.

[Juke99]

Well Parcells has said himself this season has been a big disappointment. I find that easy to understand its been a blow to all Cowboy fans.

And all of us are eventually going to lose it and fail to finish our goal, maybe Parcells has met his Waterloo like you said time will tell.

To me in retrospect last year was the fluke and gave fans a false impression of the talent or lack thereof on this teams roster. This team has addressed several of the critical areas but several still need answers.

Some of Parcells moves obviouly haven't worked out, while others have. But IMO we are still making progress when I don't feel that way then I'll probably want a change. But right now IMO most fans have underestimated the hole this franchise was in because of mis-management, and to do it right there really isn't a shortcut. This teams core has to be built through the draft and that will take time.

Well stated..

Interestingly, I think the organization had the false impression as much, if not more so, than the fans...from what I recall, there wasn't a whole lot of optimism around here coming into this season...

I accept the rebuilding...in fact, I have no problem with it...been a fan for along time....I'm not going anywhere...

What I can't accept is rebuilding with the likes of George, Ward, Wiley, Anderson, Testaverde, etc...we've become an older team since Parcells took over...

[jimmy40]

To me in retrospect last year was the fluke and gave fans a false impression of the talent or lack thereof on this teams roster..It's all about the karma. Haven't you heard? :rolleyes:

[Next_years_Champs]

Well stated..

Interestingly, I think the organization had the false impression as much, if not more so, than the fans...from what I recall, there wasn't a whole lot of optimism around here coming into this season...

I accept the rebuilding...in fact, I have no problem with it...been a fan for along time....I'm not going anywhere...

What I can't accept is rebuilding with the likes of George, Ward, Wiley, Anderson, Testaverde, etc...we've become an older team since Parcells took over...

Yeah I have to say I don't understand some of the personel moves, other than to hope they were brought in as locker room examples until young talent was obtained to take their position.

This season has left many unanswered questions, perhaps that's what is the root cause of many of my misgivings. As a optimist and a fan who was around when this franchise was founded, I thought based on our win/lost record last year this was the year of the answers.

But when I really look at the NFL level talent on this team I know we're still a year or two away. I think Parcells sees that as well and isn't willing to take a chance with Henson until the team is ready. To me that makes more sense than to think Parcells is starting Testaverde so he will be fired.

But I could be wrong haha! everyone knows the rest of that cliche'

[Next_years_Champs]

It's all about the karma. Haven't you heard? :rolleyes:

No i didn't know that please explain.

[big dog cowboy]

Geez, that was a rant...first one of the year.

Nice post not rant.

[Fletch]

keep selling those losses, brother. maybe jones and parcells will catch your post and buy into the "logic". i guess i'm just one of the "short-sighted" who lack "life-management skills". GO COWBOYS!

Yeah, you go and tell that to the players and coaches. "Hey guys, let's lose one for the better of the team." :rolleyes:

[Dale]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.

I think if Parcells had seen enough from either of our young quarterbacks to make a long-term commitment to them, they'd be in the lineup at this time. I don't think it's unrealistic for a rookie quarterback who has been playing baseball to NOT be ready to start his first year in the league. That's completely natural.

We went through this same path with Hutchinson, and many felt we threw him to the wolves too quickly. Here we go with Henson, and many want to make that same mistake.

If Henson were a top 10 pick, he'd likely have progressed far enough to have shown the glimpses necessary for Parcells to believe he could be the guy and to make that commitment.

It took Manning half the year to start. Roethlisberger started early because of injury. Rivers still hasn't started (for different reasons though, clearly). Palmer sat all last season. Considering Henson's background in comparison to these guys, I think it's OK for the coaching staff to be more cautious with him and to sit him slightly longer than your typical rookie quarterback.

I just don't think it's unrealistic that a subpar 18-year veteran is more prepared to start at this point than a rookie quarterback who's been playing baseball. I agree with what you're saying regarding looking toward the future, but you can't do that with just any ole' player. You've got to make darn certain you're making that commitment with the right guy or you're just wasting time. And even once that determination has been made, teams are still often wrong. I think either Henson hasn't shown Parcells enough to make him commit to him, or, he likes what he's seen but doesn't want to risk ruining it by throwing him out there too early considering his background.

[Dale]

On the Nosey.....especially, when one of the positions the team needs to evaluate, QB, will now be an unknown going into next season.

Here's my question. If Henson started five games this year, do we really know anything more about the quarterback position entering next season?

We saw how he did against Chicago. If he had performed like he was in over his head for the majority of his starts, what more would we really know? Fans, and media, would have chalked it up as your typical rookie struggles (except for the contingency ready to lynch him and say he sucks...and we know there would have been plenty of those people), yet we wouldn't really have any inkling whether or not he was the man for next year.

In my opinion at least, whether or not Henson started this season, we're going to enter next season with a huge question mark at the quarterback position. The only way to cure this is by signing a proven veteran quarterback, and I don't even know how many of those will be available.

Don't get me wrong, Juke. I see what you're saying. I just see this as a situation where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. 'Tis the life of going the route of former baseball players and projects at the quarterback position IMO.

If we had a top-10 pick at the position, there would be no doubt he'd be starting at some point, and likely this season. It's the nature of the business. But when you go with projects -- no matter how high the potential is -- there's always that doubt and uncertainty that he is really worth devoting time to.

[Sarge]

If YOU were in charge would you slide this game more toward the loss column?

No - but I would certainly take a look at our younger QB's. Nothing to lose IMO.

[JDSmith]

IMO a loss with Henson at QB is better in the long run than a win with Vinny at QB. I've been saying that for about a month now and I still think it's correct. We have gained nothing in this last month - there has been no appreciable improvement in the offense, we didn't go on some magical roll to get us into the playoffs, and our young QB got zero experience. It's all been a gigantic waste when you stop to think about it.

[Zaxor]

. It's all been a gigantic waste when you stop to think about it. Don't even need to stop....to know you are right

[Hostile]

IMO a loss with Henson at QB is better in the long run than a win with Vinny at QB. I've been saying that for about a month now and I still think it's correct. We have gained nothing in this last month - there has been no appreciable improvement in the offense, we didn't go on some magical roll to get us into the playoffs, and our young QB got zero experience. It's all been a gigantic waste when you stop to think about it.I'll go you one further my friend. A win with Henson or Romo as opposed to Vinny is a huge benefit to this team because it gives them what we all crave, confidence. It also gives the team who is moving on possibly without Vinny some chemistry, etc.

That is the big reason why I was upset when Henson got pulled in the Bears game. We were going to win that game the way our defense was playing. I'd like to think they played a bit harder because they knew the future was being planned for. Let the kid have a game plan and let him take his lumps. We'd have been better off in the long run.

This season was already a wash at that point. I really do think the defense has played to less than their ability out of frustration as much as anything.

[big dog cowboy]

I would certainly take a look at our younger QB's. Nothing to lose IMO.

I felt that way 4 months ago. Hmmmmmm.

[JDSmith]

I'll go you one further my friend. A win with Henson or Romo as opposed to Vinny is a huge benefit to this team because it gives them what we all crave, confidence. It also gives the team who is moving on possibly without Vinny some chemistry, etc.

That is the big reason why I was upset when Henson got pulled in the Bears game. We were going to win that game the way our defense was playing. I'd like to think they played a bit harder because they knew the future was being planned for. Let the kid have a game plan and let him take his lumps. We'd have been better off in the long run.

This season was already a wash at that point. I really do think the defense has played to less than their ability out of frustration as much as anything.
Absolutely, if we had sucked it up and kept Henson in there and still won the game it would have been a HUGE step for our franchise. The team would have seen that they could in fact win with Henson in there, and the injection of youth with both Henson and Julius playing back there would have been great for the team IMO. I thought it was a terrible decision to sacrifice so much just to put Vinny in there - and the funny thing is that if you go back and watch it, Vinny SUCKED the entire game. He made one or two nice throws, had his receivers bail him out with some very nice catches a few times, and basically didn't do anything well all day. Henson could have done that and we would still have had a good chance at a win. I think the biggest play of the Bears game was after Vinny threw the pick and the guy fumbled the ball back to us on the return.

[big dog cowboy]

In my opinion at least, whether or not Henson started this season, we're going to enter next season with a huge question mark at the quarterback position. The only way to cure this is by signing a proven veteran quarterback, and I don't even know how many of those will be available.

Imagine if we had signed a younger vet llike say.........Mark Brunell? :eek:

[GTaylor]

So if we win and get to play the Vikes, will it be early next year or in the 2nd half of the season?

If it's in the latter half, oh yeah! Go Cowboys!!! Guarantee an easy 'W' for next year!!!

Vikes 2nd Halves = http://home.comcast.net/~admindude/avatar.gif

[Hostile]

So if we win and get to play the Vikes, will it be early next year or in the 2nd half of the season?

If it's in the latter half, oh yeah! Go Cowboys!!! Guarantee an easy 'W' for next year!!!

Vikes 2nd Halves = http://home.comcast.net/~admindude/avatar.gifThat was funny.

[Sarge]

I felt that way 4 months ago. Hmmmmmm.

I felt this way 2 months ago.

[Sandman]

Just win baby, who cares if we play the Vike next year...Wining is the cure for all in the pro's, if want anything else, stick with the HS game. JJ don't pay players or coaches to anything BUT WIN!

[Lord Sun]

The things that mystify us. I myself find it entirely mysterious that others around here can't seem to grasp the concept of making short-term sacrifices for the sake of long-term advantages. Not a terribly difficult concept. It's what lies behind the idea of saving for a rainy day, for example. Any fool who argued "I'm concerned with this week--I'll worry about next year when I get there" would be considered short-sighted if we were talking about life-management skills. All of a sudden, when that same decision process is applied to football it's somehow considered rational (by some). Sorry gents. Try as you might, you'll never be able to make a reasonable case for chasing a seventh win in week 17 at the expense of building for the future.


Sometimes, in football and in life management, you have to make decisions that you know are principled, just, correct and right. Often, you make these decisions knowing full well that the potential for negative repercussions exists. It's a question of perspective... and of pride in oneself.

[CaptainComeback]

I agree with you especially considering how poorly the QB play has been over the last several weeks. I would be okay with seeing Vinny at QB if he had produced average numbers over the last few games played, but he has not. His playing has fallen off. Not bashing the guy, but he has a QB rating of about 59 or so since the return of Julius. That is well below average. I think the drop off to Romo or Henson would not be that bad under these circumstances.

It's even deeper than that, Joseephuss.

Testy could have thrown for 2,200 yards with 14 touchdowns if he also only had 7 interceptions. I am not as concerned with having a bunch of TDs or the bulky passing yardage as I am with the miscues that become turnovers.
If we'd have just had a quarterback that could have minimized his mistakes (like Trent Dilfer) and not killed us with 3 or more turnovers per game to his credit this season we could have been 8-8 or 9-7 and made the playoffs. For example we could have easily won the Steeler game and the second Eagle game in Philadelphia. Both games were lost on our last offensive drive with a Testaverde turnover.

[Juke99]

Here's my question. If Henson started five games this year, do we really know anything more about the quarterback position entering next season?

We saw how he did against Chicago. If he had performed like he was in over his head for the majority of his starts, what more would we really know? Fans, and media, would have chalked it up as your typical rookie struggles (except for the contingency ready to lynch him and say he sucks...and we know there would have been plenty of those people), yet we wouldn't really have any inkling whether or not he was the man for next year.

In my opinion at least, whether or not Henson started this season, we're going to enter next season with a huge question mark at the quarterback position. The only way to cure this is by signing a proven veteran quarterback, and I don't even know how many of those will be available.

Don't get me wrong, Juke. I see what you're saying. I just see this as a situation where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. 'Tis the life of going the route of former baseball players and projects at the quarterback position IMO.

If we had a top-10 pick at the position, there would be no doubt he'd be starting at some point, and likely this season. It's the nature of the business. But when you go with projects -- no matter how high the potential is -- there's always that doubt and uncertainty that he is really worth devoting time to.



Well....I've watched the first half of that Chicago game a dozen times...Henson's numbers were bad but his performance wasn't anywhere near as bad as is being suggested...in fact, the offensive line was just that, offensive..they were awful...but that's not what you've addressed, so let me move on...

Yeah...I think we would have learned alot in five starts...I think we would have learned alot in the second half of the Chicago game...Now, five starts wouldn't be indicative of how well he would perform for an entire career...but it sure would have helped to determine his strengths (so that the offense could be more tailored to him IF he were to start next season)...the point is, we sat him on the bench for an entire season while in pursuit of 7 wins...what's the point?

More importantly, I think the Henson situation tells us more about Parcells than it does Henson...and that's what gives me cause for concern more than anything else....If Parcells continues to stress experience over athleticism and playmaking, this franchise is doomed...

Henson vs Testaverde
Ward vs Crayton/Copper
George vs Jones/Lee
Wiley vs ANYONE

And my guess, if Campbell didn't go down, Witten would still be splitting time with him...

So maybe my argument is more about Parcells...perhaps Henson is only a representation of what has made me NUTZ about Parcells this season.

[JDSmith]

I think that more importantly than what we would have learned about him, it's what he would have learned about the game. There is no substitute for doing something. You can read about it, study it, break down the nuances, but you have to actually do it at some point or it's all without value. Henson is rusty, what better way than to play and practice when you are trying to get the rust off? Because the part that many people forget is that it's not JUST about the starts, it's about starter snaps in practice. Up until very recently Vinny was taking 75 - 85% of the first team snaps, because he was the starter. Had Henson stayed the starter from the Bears game on he would likely have had hundreds of additional snaps in practice with the first team O, working on our offense. He would have also had game film of himself, knowing what he did and what he thought he saw and seeing the results on film. I'd say the combination of those two factors would likely add up to him learning a lot more than him running the stinking scout team and taking 5% of the starter snaps.

[notherbob]

I say go for the win. If you have to worry whether you play the number two team or the number three team in a division, you aren't ready for the superbowl anyway.