Fire Zimmer Now!!!

[Vinnie2u]

His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better.

[roughneck266]

LOL! That's friggin hilarious!

[Bob Sacamano]

what?! 4 TDs in 5 games!! that averages out to .5 a TD a game!! that's terrible, I agree, fire Zimmer and steal Wolverine's sig

[SupermanXx]

you're not funny and all the "I told you so" posts are getting old and have lost any small degree of funniness they ever possessed (or didn't)

[Doomsday101]

And to think a couple of weeks ago HH was heading up the fire zimmer club and we actually had idiots ready to join up. LOL

[SuspectCorner]

what?! 4 TDs in 5 games!! that averages out to .5 a TD a game!! that's terrible, I agree, fire Zimmer and steal Wolverine's sig
fire your calculator. mine says .8 TD/ game....

[TheHustler]

what?! 4 TDs in 5 games!! that averages out to .5 a TD a game!! that's terrible, I agree, fire Zimmer and steal Wolverine's sig

The math is not strong in this one.

:)

[Future]

6 TDs in the final two minutes of games....fire zimmer

[Doomsday101]

you're not funny and all the "I told you so" posts are getting old and have lost any small degree of funniness they ever possessed (or didn't)

What's old is guys slamming this team and coaches only to say well I'll eat crow later on. How about supporting the team and coaches and giving them the oppertunity to show what they can do over the course of a season instead of jumping ship after a loss.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.blogstudio.com/VoodooChild278/code_10050_animated.gif

[Bob Sacamano]

fire your calculator. mine says .8 TD/ game....

close enough ;)

[SupermanXx]

What's old is guys slamming this team and coaches only to say well I'll eat crow later on. How about supporting the team and coaches and giving them the oppertunity to show what they can do over the course of a season instead of jumping ship after a loss.

I agree

[aikemirv]

Don't you guys know that everything good that the D does is because of BP and the bad plays are because of Zimmer :rolleyes:

[NickZepp]

Man in the last 5 games the most we've given up is 19 points. That's it, fire Zimmer, he can't coach worth a crap.

[dallasblue05]

I say lay off it with all the Zimmer threads. This guys is still learning the 3-4 defense. Sure he knows how it works, but he has yet to go against all diffrent kinds of offensive strategies and he is still figuring out what situations call for certain plays and techniques in the 3-4. Zimmer might be the MVC (most valuable coach) by the end of the year cuz our defense is ranked 5th in the league, and how many rookies are we playing?? Zimmer deserves a lot of credit and some of you morons just have too much pride to admit it!!

[AmarilloCowboyFan]

The math is not strong in this one.

:)

LMAO

that's funny stuff.

[Zman5]

What a lousy bum. He's a wuss. :laugh2:

[AdamJT13]

6 TDs in the final two minutes of games....fire zimmer

It's two TDs in the final two minutes. And only four TDs in the entire fourth quarter.

[Nors]

I think other than a few obvious melt downs this defense has played great.

More sacks
We are not getting run on as predicted in 3-4
More turnover, a TD!

All in all our Rookies playing up to Billing!

[kojak]

His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better.

:eek:

Oh no, we only see these kind of posts after we lose.

[Yakuza Rich]

fire your calculator. mine says .8 TD/ game....

Now, THAT'S funny.


Rich........

[HTownCowboysFan]

His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better.

LOL! :laugh2:

Zimmer is a hell of a coach. Look what having a bit of talent does for one's D.

[Mike 1967]

I thought this was Parcells defense :rolleyes:

[Doomsday101]

I thought this was Parcells defense :rolleyes:

Only on the good days. LOL

[scottsp]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing part(s) of this team when its deserved, just as there is absolutely nothing wrong with heaping praise when we feel its justified. I try not to bang pots when things look bleak and I will not pump sunshine on days like today. If I am right in my assessments, great. If not, I will admit as much.

As to this defense, what's not to like? The late TDs surrendered against Washington and Seattle remain unfortunate, but I agree with Parcells on this one. Once the pass rush steps it up in those late game situations, those problems will be remedied. And I definitely think we have that to look forward to.

[Hostile]

Yeah, it's not like Anthony Henry actually scored or we're getitng sacks either.

[/sarcasm off]

[Kilyin]

According to my math, this defense has given up 4 touchdowns in our opponents last 58 possessions. Let's get rid of Zimmer and bring in Dom Capers.

[Mike 1967]

All kidding aside

I believe that it is safe to say that the move away from 4-3 to the 3-4 was a good move.

I think it is also safe to say that Parcells is better at selecting talent for the 3-4 than the previous decision makers were at selecting talent for the 4-3.

I also like the number Ellis is putting up. He is doing very well for someone who is basically flying under the radar. He beat a double team yesterday on one of his sacks.

[Hostile]

All kidding aside

I believe that it is safe to say that the move away from 4-3 to the 3-4 was a good move.

I think it is also safe to say that Parcells is better at selecting talent for the 3-4 than the previous decision makers were at selecting talent for the 4-3.

I also like the number Ellis is putting up. He is doing very well for someone who is basically flying under the radar. He beat a double team yesterday on one of his sacks.We have a good group of defenders who could succeed in just about any scheme. 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, Nickel, Dime. They are smart. They are versatile. They have decent cohesion. I don't know that we could ask for much more than that.

[Mike 1967]

We have a good group of defenders who could succeed in just about any scheme. 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, Nickel, Dime. They are smart. They are versatile. They have decent cohesion. I don't know that we could ask for much more than that.

I cannot completely agree with you on that point. Parcells has made the comment on numerous occasions that Ware would not hold up if used constantly as a 4-3 end. And there are different speed and size requirements between the two schemes.

But...even if I were to grant you your point.....I would still beg the question: Who do you give the credit to for creating this group of players. Not last years group...but this years group.

[Hostile]

I cannot completely agree with you on that point. Parcells has made the comment on numerous occasions that Ware would not hold up if used constantly as a 4-3 end. And there are different speed and size requirements between the two schemes.

But...even if I were to grant you your point.....I would still beg the question: Who do you give the credit to for creating this group of players. Not last years group...but this years group.Ware can take a breather if we use a 4-3 scheme on some plays. This team changes up a lot. It's cool to watch.

I credit Parcells, Jones, Ireland, and the coaching staff as well as the players themselves. It's a good job all the way around.

[Mike 1967]

Ware can take a breather if we use a 4-3 scheme on some plays. This team changes up a lot. It's cool to watch.

I credit Parcells, Jones, Ireland, and the coaching staff as well as the players themselves. It's a good job all the way around.

It is definitely cool to watch.

I give 90% of the credit to Parcells. He appears to be a great defensive mind and personnel evaluator.

Now if he will just stay out of the offensive play calling :)

[Hostile]

It is definitely cool to watch.

I give 90% of the credit to Parcells. He appears to be a great defensive mind and personnel evaluator.

Now if he will just stay out of the offensive play calling :)I don't care who gets the credit. It's a team effort or it wouldn't be working.

The great thing is they can still get better.

[Mike 1967]

I don't care who gets the credit. It's a team effort or it wouldn't be working.

The great thing is they can still get better.

Sounds good...but....

Root Cause is an extremely important thing to identify.

Because without it...you cannot expect to repeat success...and you can expect to repeat failure.

I am not interested in giving credit....but I am interested in identifying root cause.

And as far as the Defense goes. It is a clear result of the draft and the change in scheme. And the root cause behind both of those is Parcells.

And hopefully PArcells will (1) be with us for some time to come and (2) will install these same talents in the staff around him.

[lcharles]

:fogeys: yep!

[Hostile]

Sounds good...but....

Root Cause is an extremely important thing to identify.

Because without it...you cannot expect to repeat success...and you can expect to repeat failure.

I am not interested in giving credit....but I am interested in identifying root cause.

And as far as the Defense goes. It is a clear result of the draft and the change in scheme. And the root cause behind both of those is Parcells.

And hopefully PArcells will (1) be with us for some time to come and (2) will install these same talents in the staff around him.If that makes you feel better about the defense it's okay by me. I don't disagree. I will say that they are equally yoked together. The players have to be able to play. The scouting department has to know what to look for. The management has to be able to afford them. The coaches have to eb able to coach them.

It's all inter-related. I don't care who people want to give the credit to. I'm giving it out to all of them. No one is falling down on the job.

[jem88]

you're not funny and all the "I told you so" posts are getting old and have lost any small degree of funniness they ever possessed (or didn't)
This definately gets a post of the day nod. It would be funny if any of these posts had just slightest amount of wit, but they're all so obvious.

[Mike 1967]

This definately gets a post of the day nod. It would be funny if any of these posts had just slightest amount of wit, but they're all so obvious.

Funny thing is....I am not a big Zimmer fan and nobody has shown me any reason why I should be.

Parcells took over the scheme and the personnel. And this is supposed to make me change my position on Zimmer ?

I suppose next someone will be telling me that 2+3 = 12

[MarionBarberThe4th]

what?! 4 TDs in 5 games!! that averages out to .5 a TD a game!! that's terrible, I agree, fire Zimmer and steal Wolverine's sig

http://basketballboards.net/forum/images/smilies/naughty.gif (http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=452#) http://basketballboards.net/forum/images/smilies/pity.gif (http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=452#)
From the man who claims Im stupid http://basketballboards.net/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif (http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=452#)

[Mike 1967]

If that makes you feel better about the defense it's okay by me. I don't disagree. I will say that they are equally yoked together. The players have to be able to play. The scouting department has to know what to look for. The management has to be able to afford them. The coaches have to eb able to coach them.

It's all inter-related. I don't care who people want to give the credit to. I'm giving it out to all of them. No one is falling down on the job.

What was the original point of the originator of this thread ?

Would be one thing if I just pulled my comments out of thin air. But...I did not. I was simply responding to an obvious attempt to slam those who questioned Zimmer's ability.

I question the logic of that position. Unless I am expected to give Zimmer credit for being under Parcells lead.

[Doomsday101]

Funny thing is....I am not a big Zimmer fan and nobody has shown me any reason why I should be.

Parcells took over the scheme and the personnel. And this is supposed to make me change my position on Zimmer ?

I suppose next someone will be telling me that 2+3 = 12

Bill trusted him to do the job and he has been doing the job. Bill oversee every aspect of this team as most head coaches do but the coordinators are the guys who are working with their group day in and day out.

[Yeagermeister]

My Madden team hasn't given up any td's.....hire me as DC :D

[Doomsday101]

My Madden team hasn't given up any td's.....hire me as DC :D

And I won the NASCAR Championship 3 years in a row in the same year. LOL

[Mike 1967]

Bill trusted him to do the job and he has been doing the job. Bill oversee every aspect of this team as most head coaches do but the coordinators are the guys who are working with their group day in and day out.


Yes...Bill obviously has faith in Zimmer organizational skills and work ethic. Zimmer is doing a good job of overseeing the defense that Bill is building. But Zimmer is in no way the catalyst behind the changes that we have seen. To say that is....well...simply ludicrous.

But...not every coach dictates the scheme or personnel on the defensive side of the ball.

In fact, most head coaches are either defensive leaning or offensive leaning. I would have to say that Big Bill is a defensive leaning coach.

Lovey Smith (Chicago) would be an example of a defensive minded coach. Mike Martz was an example of an offensive minded coach.

[Yeagermeister]

And I won the NASCAR Championship 3 years in a row in the same year. LOL
Does Jack Roush know about this? He could have saved himself the misery of doing a reality show :laugh2:

[Mike 1967]

The ironic and funny thing is that Zimmer was fired. He was fired at the end of last year.

If the defense was a department inside of a corporation...then the analogy would go like this.

- Zimmer was the manager of that department last year.
- But the CEO came in this year and took over the department because of lackluster performance.
- Zimmer still has the title...but the management of the department is being directly dictated by the CEO.
- Zimmer is now managing the day to day operations of the department per the direction of the CEO.

Hopefully Zimmer will become a better manager after gaining experience under the CEO's tutelage.

[Doomsday101]

Yes...Bill obviously has faith in Zimmer organizational skills and work ethic. Zimmer is doing a good job of overseeing the defense that Bill is building. But Zimmer is in no way the catalyst behind the changes that we have seen. To say that is....well...simply ludicrous.

But...not every coach dictates the scheme or personnel on the defensive side of the ball.

In fact, most head coaches are either defensive leaning or offensive leaning. I would have to say that Big Bill is a defensive leaning coach.

Lovey Smith (Chicago) would be an example of a defensive minded coach. Mike Martz was an example of an offensive minded coach.

Same could have been said about Erine Stautner when he was DC of the Cowboys. Tom as HC of course is going to run the style of defense he wants which was the flex but the Coordinator still has to get these guys ready to play each week. My point is Zimmer is doing the job he is paid to do and has been doing a very good job. Bill told Zimmer learn the 3-4 and Zimmer has done that

[Mike 1967]

Same could have been said about Erine Stautner when he was DC of the Cowboys. Tom as HC of course is going to run the style of defense he wants which was the flex but the Coordinator still has to get these guys ready to play each week. My point is Zimmer is doing the job he is paid to do and has been doing a very good job. Bill told Zimmer learn the 3-4 and Zimmer has done that


That is exacty why Tom's is a household name and Erine Stautners is not.

Zimmer appears to be a very good "worker". But Zimmer does not appear to be a very good "leader".

I believe that this defense would still be where it is without Zimmer. But I do not believe that this defense would be where it is without Parcells. Parcells is the Catalyst...not Zimmer.

Again.....the only reason that I bring this up is in response to the original point of this originator of this thread. "Fire Zimmer Now"....the context being that where are all those idiots that were calling for Zimmers head.

This is an assinine statement that I am simply rebuffing. I am not trying to slam Zimmer. I am simply making the obvious argument that it is Parcells that should get the credit for the turnaround....not Zimmer.

I am not saying that Zimmer is not a good fit for the current job. That job being the mid-level manager of Parcells defense.

[AdamJT13]

The ironic and funny thing is that Zimmer was fired. He was fired at the end of last year.

If the defense was a department inside of a corporation...then the analogy would go like this.

- Zimmer was the manager of that department last year.
- But the CEO came in this year and took over the department because of lackluster performance.
- Zimmer still has the title...but the management of the department is being directly dictated by the CEO.
- Zimmer is now managing the day to day operations of the department per the direction of the CEO.

Hopefully Zimmer will become a better manager after gaining experience under the CEO's tutelage.

I don't see it that way at all. All the CEO did was change the overall philosophy of the operation. He didn't take over any of the manager's duties. Zimmer still makes all of the defensive calls.

[Doomsday101]

That is exacty why Tom's is a household name and Erine Stautners is not.

Zimmer appears to be a very good "worker". But Zimmer does not appear to be a very good "leader".

I believe that this defense would still be where it is without Zimmer. But I do not believe that this defense would be where it is without Parcells. Parcells is the Catalyst...not Zimmer.

Again.....the only reason that I bring this up is in response to the original point of this originator of this thread. "Fire Zimmer Now"....the context being that where are all those idiots that were calling for Zimmers head.

This is an assinine statement that I am simply rebuffing. I am not trying to slam Zimmer. I am simply making the obvious argument that it is Parcells that should get the credit for the turnaround....not Zimmer.

I am not saying that Zimmer is not a good fit for the current job. That job being the mid-level manager of Parcells defense.

I'll just say I disagree. This mid-level management? This is not an office the Coordinators carry out what the HC demands I give a lot of credit to Bill in all phases of the game after all you think the offense is Paytons offense or does Bill control that as well? If your asking who brought the 3-4 here I agree it was Bill but Zimmer is the man working this unit and is the one making the calls on game day. If the defense fails Zimmer is going to take the blame and if they have success he should and will get credit for the job.

[Mike 1967]

I don't see it that way at all. All the CEO did was change the overall philosophy of the operation. He didn't take over any of the manager's duties. Zimmer still makes all of the defensive calls.

Let me be more specific then.

As the manager of a department...I dictate my own departmental policies and procedures. I am simply given a list of responsibilities and expectations by the CEO....it is up to me how I structure my department.

In this analogy I failed to meet those expectations. I did not get fired...but...I no longer establish the processes and procedures of my department. They are dictated directly by the CEO.

The parallel here is obvious. The 3-4 scheme was instituted by Parcells. Zimmer is simply a pupil that is coordinating what Parcells is dictating.

If you want to see an example of a totally reverse situation...then I can offer up two right off the top of my head....Washington and Philadelphia.

[phdefense]

or you could say that his defense has given up 4 touchdowns in 5 games despite the fact that he is the DC

I criticise him when the defense is good
2001 top 5
2003 #1
and now in 2005

[Mike 1967]

I'll just say I disagree. This mid-level management? This is not an office the Coordinators carry out what the HC demands I give a lot of credit to Bill in all phases of the game after all you think the offense is Paytons offense or does Bill control that as well? If your asking who brought the 3-4 here I agree it was Bill but Zimmer is the man working this unit and is the one making the calls on game day. If the defense fails Zimmer is going to take the blame and if they have success he should and will get credit for the job.

I'll just say your wrong.

Zimmer knew absolutely nothing about the 3-4 scheme this time last year. The math is simple.

[Doomsday101]

I'll just say your wrong.

Zimmer knew absolutely nothing about the 3-4 scheme this time last year. The math is simple.

Zimmer never coached the 3-4 to say he know nothing of the 3-4 is stupid, these men in the NFL know and do understand the different schemes out there and the fact that Parcells entrusted him with the change of schemes say a hell of a lot of what Parcells thinks of Zimmer.

[Mike 1967]

As far as I'm concerned Zimmer is a non-catalyst in the entire equation.

He may be an excellent organizer and worker....but I do not see any evidence that his is a great defensive mind. And I mean that twofold....I see no evidence of great X's and O's...and I see no evidence of great talent evaluator.

It could be argued that he was simply holding the fort on Jimmy and Campo's defensive schemes.

There was an interesting comment yesterday by one of the announcers...I believe it was Aikman. The announcer stated that the DC for the Cards had worked for the Cowboys under Zimmer. But the DC said that he credited a lot of his success to Campo. There was no mention of Zimmer.

When Parcells came in he did not change the defense. He let the defense ride because of it's previous success...because it had a history of being a pretty good defense. Following last season he admitted this was a mistake and took over the reigns. He implemented his defense.

Now Zimmer is basically holding the fort on Parcells Defense.

[Mike 1967]

Zimmer never coached the 3-4 to say he know nothing of the 3-4 is stupid, these men in the NFL know and do understand the different schemes out there and the fact that Parcells entrusted him with the change of schemes say a hell of a lot of what Parcells thinks of Zimmer.

Then Zimmer must be stupid...because that is exactly what he said during the offseason when the change was made.

And Parcells obviously trusts Zimmer to implement the plan that Parcells puts in place. I'm not saying that Zimmer is not a good coach when it comes to organization and work ethic. What I am saying is that the primary factors behind the change in our defense is not Zimmers organization and work ethic. The primary factors are Parcells vision, experience and ability to evaluate talent.

[Doomsday101]

As far as I'm concerned Zimmer is a non-catalyst in the entire equation.

He may be an excellent organizer and worker....but I do not see any evidence that his is a great defensive mind. And I mean that twofold....I see no evidence of great X's and O's...and I see no evidence of great talent evaluator.

It could be argued that he was simply holding the fort on Jimmy and Campo's defensive schemes.

There was an interesting comment yesterday by one of the announcers...I believe it was Aikman. The announcer stated that the DC for the Cards had worked for the Cowboys under Zimmer. But the DC said that he credited a lot of his success to Campo. There was no mention of Zimmer.

When Parcells came in he did not change the defense. He let the defense ride because of it's previous success...because it had a history of being a pretty good defense. Following last season he admitted this was a mistake and took over the reigns. He implemented his defense.

Now Zimmer is basically holding the fort on Parcells Defense.

Aikman did not cover the game it was Baldinger and he also talked about the great job by Zimmer and the job he has done

[Mike 1967]

Aikman did not cover the game it was Baldinger and he also talked about the great job by Zimmer and the job he has done

That's right...Aikman did the Philly Bronco's game.

But announce aside...he credited Campo for teaching him what he knew. Which fits the picture I see.

[Mike 1967]

Zimmer never coached the 3-4 to say he know nothing of the 3-4 is stupid, these men in the NFL know and do understand the different schemes out there and the fact that Parcells entrusted him with the change of schemes say a hell of a lot of what Parcells thinks of Zimmer.


This debate has zero to do with what Parcells thinks about Zimmer. Your getting off track...as usual.

[BigDFan5]

Mike who is calling the D plays?

[Mike 1967]

So what exactly changed between last season and this season.

Is the change in defensive output because of Zimmers work ethic and organizational skills.

-or-

Is the change in defensive output because of Parcells implementation of his scheme and direct involvement in player personnel decisions to fit that scheme.

Based on the originators comments....It would appear that some here would choose number 1. Surely I am mistaken.

[Cbz40]

fire your calculator. mine says .8 TD/ game....


How in the heck do you score .8 TDs/ a game????.......... :)

[Doomsday101]

This debate has zero to do with what Parcells thinks about Zimmer. Your getting off track...as usual.

I'm not getting off tract I'm saying Zimmer does share credit for the success of this defense.

[Vinnie2u]

That would be Zimmer

[Hostile]

What was the original point of the originator of this thread ?

Would be one thing if I just pulled my comments out of thin air. But...I did not. I was simply responding to an obvious attempt to slam those who questioned Zimmer's ability.

I question the logic of that position. Unless I am expected to give Zimmer credit for being under Parcells lead.The original position of the thread was a sarcastic shot at the anti-Zimmer crowd.

I think you missed the obvious sarcasm of the author. Therefore, you really aren't questioning his position at all.

If the intent you have is to not give Zimmer any credit then I missed that intent myself.

[Doomsday101]

So what exactly changed between last season and this season.

Is the change in defensive output because of Zimmers work ethic and organizational skills.

-or-

Is the change in defensive output because of Parcells implementation of his scheme and direct involvement in player personnel decisions to fit that scheme.

Based on the originators comments....It would appear that some here would choose number 1. Surely I am mistaken.

Scheme means nothing if you can't get the players playing at a high level and understanding what their assignments are with in a game or making calls to put them in the best situation. That is the job of a coordinator and exactly what Zimmer does

[Hostile]

The ironic and funny thing is that Zimmer was fired. He was fired at the end of last year.

If the defense was a department inside of a corporation...then the analogy would go like this.

- Zimmer was the manager of that department last year.
- But the CEO came in this year and took over the department because of lackluster performance.
- Zimmer still has the title...but the management of the department is being directly dictated by the CEO.
- Zimmer is now managing the day to day operations of the department per the direction of the CEO.

Hopefully Zimmer will become a better manager after gaining experience under the CEO's tutelage.Zimmer was not fired. He was given the specific task of re-shaping. You don't give a task like that to an incompetent. In other words, clearly the organization believes he is an asset.

[Mike 1967]

Mike who is calling the D plays?

That is a good question.

I thought it was the linebacker in the majority of cases. And I thought that was one of the reasons why Nguyen was such a valuable player...because he was good at reading the offense and making the correct call.

And the "correct call" is dictated by the situation. In certain situations, certain defensive schemes are deployed. And the schemes used in those certain situations are ultimately defined by Parcells. So ultimately, Parcells is making the calls...because he is the one that established the definitions. Everyone else, including Zimmer, is simply learning what Parcells has established.

As far as when to blitz. I cannot truly answer that question. But I would bet a large sum of money that Parcells is the primary controller of those reigns.

[Mike 1967]

Zimmer was not fired. He was given the specific task of re-shaping. You don't give a task like that to an incompetent. In other words, clearly the organization believes he is an asset.

BS.

Zimmer did not reshape.

Parcells reshaped. Zimmer is simply overseeing what Parcells is building.

Parcells is the architect....Zimmer is simply the contractor. You should understand that analogy from your business experience.

[Hostile]

Let me be more specific then.

As the manager of a department...I dictate my own departmental policies and procedures. I am simply given a list of responsibilities and expectations by the CEO....it is up to me how I structure my department.

In this analogy I failed to meet those expectations. I did not get fired...but...I no longer establish the processes and procedures of my department. They are dictated directly by the CEO.

The parallel here is obvious. The 3-4 scheme was instituted by Parcells. Zimmer is simply a pupil that is coordinating what Parcells is dictating.

If you want to see an example of a totally reverse situation...then I can offer up two right off the top of my head....Washington and Philadelphia.Let's roll with this analogy.

You're the CEO of an organization. You're about to change your operating procedures.

Do you give that task to an incompetent Manager? Or do you give it to your best Manager?

[Mike 1967]

Zimmer was not fired. He was given the specific task of re-shaping. You don't give a task like that to an incompetent. In other words, clearly the organization believes he is an asset.


Again...I never said that Zimmer was not an asset.

He is obviously a good overseer. But that does not make him an architect.

I give the architect the praise for a beautiful building....not the contractor who oversee's the day labor.

[BigDFan5]

That is a good question.

I thought it was the linebacker in the majority of cases. And I thought that was one of the reasons why Nguyen was such a valuable player...because he was good at reading the offense and making the correct call.

And the "correct call" is dictated by the situation. In certain situations, certain defensive schemes are deployed. And the schemes used in those certain situations are ultimately defined by Parcells. So ultimately, Parcells is making the calls...because he is the one that established the definitions. Everyone else, including Zimmer, is simply learning what Parcells has established.

As far as when to blitz. I cannot truly answer that question. But I would bet a large sum of money that Parcells is the primary controller of those reigns.


So basically in your opinion Zimmer is just a prop and any of us could stand there and the D would be playing just as well.

[Mike 1967]

Let's roll with this analogy.

You're the CEO of an organization. You're about to change your operating procedures.

Do you give that task to an incompetent Manager? Or do you give it to your best Manager?


Your analogy does not work.

An accounting manager is not an expert in purchasing. Niether is a purchasing manager an expert in marketing. Niether is a sales manager an expert in materials.

My best manager may very well be my accounting manager. But that does not mean that he is the best choice in establishing purchasing procedures.

In order to establish the best operating procedures for a given department.....that person must be an expert in the disciplines of that department.

If the accounting manager is the best manager to establish operating procedures for the purchasing department...then I'm most probably in trouble.

But in this instance...the CEO has a purchasing background. So the CEO is an expert in the disciplines of purchasing....hence he is the best choice for establishing proceducers for this department.

If we were discussing Spurrier...then we would not be talking about and instance where the HC should be establishing procedures for the defensive side of the ball.

[Hostile]

BS.

Zimmer did not reshape.

Parcells reshaped. Zimmer is simply overseeing what Parcells is building.

Parcells is the architect....Zimmer is simply the contractor. You should understand that analogy from your business experience.You bet I understand it. That's why I am disagreeing with you.

I would never give a task this important to someone incapable of handling it.

Yes, Parcells is the architect. Guess what? Architects don't do the actual work. It's their design, but the builder makes it fly.

[Mike 1967]

So basically in your opinion Zimmer is just a prop and any of us could stand there and the D would be playing just as well.

Nope....that is taking my position way out of context in an effort to undermine my argument.

[Mike 1967]

You bet I understand it. That's why I am disagreeing with you.

I would never give a task this important to someone incapable of handling it.

Yes, Parcells is the architect. Guess what? Architects don't do the actual work. It's their design, but the builder makes it fly.

You are missing my point. Possibly on purpose in an effort to reshape my argument.

Zimmer is capable of implementing a plan established by Parcells with personnel selected by Parcells.

That is great and much needed....but it in no way means that Zimmer is the catalyst behind the success.

[Hostile]

Your analogy does not work.

An accounting manager is not an expert in purchasing. Niether is a purchasing manager an expert in marketing. Niether is a sales manager an expert in materials.

My best manager may very well be my accounting manager. But that does not mean that he is the best choice in establishing purchasing procedures.

In order to establish the best operating procedures for a given department.....that person must be an expert in the disciplines of that department.

If the accounting manager is the best manager to establish operating procedures for the purchasing department...then I'm most probably in trouble.

But in this instance...the CEO has a purchasing background. So the CEO is an expert in the disciplines of purchasing....hence he is the best choice for establishing proceducers for this department.

If we were discussing Spurrier...then we would not be talking about and instance where the HC should be establishing procedures for the defensive side of the ball.Actually, it's the other way around. Your analogy isn't working.

Parcells himself said in Press Conferences this year that he "gave Zimmer the task of learning everything he could about the 3-4." Why would he say this? My guess is because it was true and he wanted to work with Jeff Ireland and Stephen Jones on the off season acquisitions.

Parcells has further stated since then that Payton and Zimmer call the respective plays. Again, I take him at his word.

You're wanting me to believe that Parcells has people on his staff doing nothing.

No way, no shape, no how.

[Trip]

We have a good group of defenders who could succeed in just about any scheme. 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, Nickel, Dime. They are smart. They are versatile. They have decent cohesion. I don't know that we could ask for much more than that.

Don't forget as a whole they're young. I agree, 4-3, 3-4, whatever. These guys can get after the QB, match up man to man on receivers, knock your block off, tackle well, these defenders could succeed in any defense... and most of them have been good in the past in different schemes. Heck they're good right now, and we play both, so....

[dwmyers]

We have a good group of defenders who could succeed in just about any scheme. 4-3, 3-4, 5-2, Nickel, Dime. They are smart. They are versatile. They have decent cohesion. I don't know that we could ask for much more than that.

We could ask for a better free safety, maybe ;)

[Hostile]

You are missing my point. Possibly on purpose in an effort to reshape my argument.

Zimmer is capable of implementing a plan established by Parcells with personnel selected by Parcells.

That is great and much needed....but it in no way means that Zimmer is the catalyst behind the success.I never said he was a catalyst. He is certainly an enabler though. If he was incapable of coaching the 3-4 he would not have been given the task. It's really that simple. He clearly wasn't fired. He was told, "here's a new technology, implement it." He did.

[BigDFan5]

Nope....that is taking my position way out of context in an effort to undermine my argument.


Were these not your words?

I believe that this defense would still be where it is without Zimmer.

and..

As far as I'm concerned Zimmer is a non-catalyst in the entire equation.

and

Now Zimmer is basically holding the fort on Parcells Defense

[Mike 1967]

Actually, it's the other way around. Your analogy isn't working.

Parcells himself said in Press Conferences this year that he "gave Zimmer the task of learning everything he could about the 3-4." Why would he say this? My guess is because it was true and he wanted to work with Jeff Ireland and Stephen Jones on the off season acquisitions.

Parcells has further stated since then that Payton and Zimmer call the respective plays. Again, I take him at his word.

You're wanting me to believe that Parcells has people on his staff doing nothing.

No way, no shape, no how.

LOL...my analogy works perfectly. Just because you fail to see it does not change the fact.

Why would he say this ??? Apparantly because Zimmer did not have a very firm grasp on the scheme that was going to be employed.

Do you actually believe that Zimmer is the architect of the schemes we employ after 1 year of "learning everything he can". Do you actually believe that the selection of Spears, Ware, Furgosun, and Henry were due to Zimmers crash course ?

Zimmer is a manager in training. And any calls Zimmer makes are based off of the preset philosophy that Parcells spoon fed him.

[Mike 1967]

Were these not your words?



and..



and

Yep....and your point is what ?

[BigDFan5]

Yep....and your point is what ?


So according to your own words, Zimmer means nothing it doesn't matter if he is here or not. Like I said you make it seem like he is nothing like a prop and your own words show that

[TwentyOne]

what?! 4 TDs in 5 games!! that averages out to .5 a TD a game!! that's terrible, I agree, fire Zimmer and steal Wolverine's sig

4/5 = 0.5 :eek:

[Mike 1967]

I never said he was a catalyst. He is certainly an enabler though. If he was incapable of coaching the 3-4 he would not have been given the task. It's really that simple. He clearly wasn't fired. He was told, "here's a new technology, implement it." He did.

Perhaps this is where we differ.

Zimmer could very well be a great coach of players. In the context of taking a set of information and teaching it to a team of players. All evidence would indicate that Zimmer is a good coach in that aspect.

But what I am saying is that the X's and O's...and the evaluation of the players is the primary catalyst behind the success. Not Zimmers ability to translate that data into the players.

Zimmer did not need to be fired because Bill Parcells is the master mind behind the defense. IF we had an offensive minded coach...then Zimmer would have been fired.

Zimmer is obviously an important piece of the overall team. BUT....Parcells scheme and talent evalutation is the primary catalyst behind the success.

[AdamJT13]

Zimmer did not need to be fired because Bill Parcells is the master mind behind the defense. IF we had an offensive minded coach...then Zimmer would have been fired.

The only way Zimmer would been fired after 2004 is if we had changed head coaches, too, and the new head coach wanted to bring in his own defensive coordinator. Any head coach that was with the team for 2003 and 2004 would know what Zimmer can do and would not have fired him. That's exactly why Parcells never even had an inkling about getting rid of Zimmer. He watched what Zimmer did in 2003 and knew what went wrong in 2004 -- and he knew that it wasn't Zimmer.

[Mike 1967]

So according to your own words, Zimmer means nothing it doesn't matter if he is here or not. Like I said you make it seem like he is nothing like a prop and your own words show that

I believe that this defense would still be where it is without Zimmer.

As far as I'm concerned Zimmer is not the catalyst, Parcells is.

And, Zimmer holding the fort on Parcells Defense

But Zimmer appears to be doing a good job of teaching what Parcells is directing.

But at the end of the day I have full confidence that PArcells could locate another good teacher.

Specifically, I believe that Zimmer would be much much easier to replace than Parcells. And I believe that if ours was an offensive minded coach...that Zimmer would need to be replaced.

[Mike 1967]

The only way Zimmer would been fired after 2004 is if we had changed head coaches, too, and the new head coach wanted to bring in his own defensive coordinator. Any head coach that was with the team for 2003 and 2004 would know what Zimmer can do and would not have fired him. That's exactly why Parcells never even had an inkling about getting rid of Zimmer. He watched what Zimmer did in 2003 and knew what went wrong in 2004 -- and he knew that it wasn't Zimmer.

Zimmer did not get fired because of what PArcells brought to the table.

Parcells is the defensive mastermind....so he simply needed someone to coach his system. We did not need to go out and get a full blown DC with his own system.

This is why Zimmer was not fired.

[AdamJT13]

Zimmer did not get fired because of what PArcells brought to the table.

Parcells is the defensive mastermind....so he simply needed someone to coach his system. We did not need to go out and get a full blown DC with his own system.

This is why Zimmer was not fired.

No, Zimmer didn't get fired because he didn't deserve to be fired. And Parcells knew that.

[Mike 1967]

No, Zimmer didn't get fired because he didn't deserve to be fired. And Parcells knew that.

Nope

Zimmer did not get fired because we did not need a full blown DC.

How many times does a team completely change it's Defensive Scheme without changing coordinators ?

We did not need to bring in a new DC because the mastermind behind the new defensive scheme was already here......PARCELLS.

Have you ever considered that maybe Parcells preferred to start from scratch with someone that he could teach. Rather than deal with a new DC that would come to the table with some preset expectations on how to employ the 3-4.

[Mike 1967]

No, Zimmer didn't get fired because he didn't deserve to be fired. And Parcells knew that.

Or rather...... YES !

Zimmer did not deserve to get fired because there was no need to bring in a DC that was familiar with the 3-4.....because PArcells already brought that to the table.

[Hostile]

Perhaps this is where we differ.

Zimmer could very well be a great coach of players. In the context of taking a set of information and teaching it to a team of players. All evidence would indicate that Zimmer is a good coach in that aspect.

But what I am saying is that the X's and O's...and the evaluation of the players is the primary catalyst behind the success. Not Zimmers ability to translate that data into the players.

Zimmer did not need to be fired because Bill Parcells is the master mind behind the defense. IF we had an offensive minded coach...then Zimmer would have been fired.

Zimmer is obviously an important piece of the overall team. BUT....Parcells scheme and talent evalutation is the primary catalyst behind the success.This is not meant to offend and I hope it doesn't.

I would hate to work for you.

Let me see if I have this straight. You're Parcells. You have a vision, directive, goal, demand, or whatever you want to call it, to get this team ready to play the 3-4.

You give this task to me. I work my butt off. Project is paying off.

You and only you deserve the pedastal?

Frick that. Give me a team working together any day. Seems pretty clear to me that is exactly what he is doing.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this at all.

[Mike 1967]

This is not meant to offend and I hope it doesn't.

I would hate to work for you.

Let me see if I have this straight. You're Parcells. You have a vision, directive, goal, demand, or whatever you want to call it, to get this team ready to play the 3-4.

You give this task to me. I work my butt off. Project is paying off.

You and only you deserve the pedastal?

Frick that. Give me a team working together any day. Seems pretty clear to me that is exactly what he is doing.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this at all.

Nice try.

First, Parcells is not taking the pedestal

Second, I did not start this thread. I was simply responding to a point made by the original poster who was obviously giving Zimmer the credit for the defensive change in success.

Third, in my analogy I did not simply give you a vision, directive or goal. I actually wrote the entire ISO quality manual for your department. Specifically, every procedure required to run your deparment.

Good job for following directions and teaching the department the manual that I gave you.

But at the end of the day we all know what drove the change in the department. It has nothing to do with pedestal.

It simply is what it is.

[Trip]

LOL...my analogy works perfectly. Just because you fail to see it does not change the fact.

Why would he say this ??? Apparantly because Zimmer did not have a very firm grasp on the scheme that was going to be employed.

Do you actually believe that Zimmer is the architect of the schemes we employ after 1 year of "learning everything he can". Do you actually believe that the selection of Spears, Ware, Furgosun, and Henry were due to Zimmers crash course ?

Zimmer is a manager in training. And any calls Zimmer makes are based off of the preset philosophy that Parcells spoon fed him.

So you believe this years defense is what it is because of Parcells talent evaluation, is that correct? Without the keen eye of Bill, Zimmer could never have a successful defense, right?

[Mike 1967]

So you believe this years defense is what it is because of Parcells talent evaluation, is that correct? Without the keen eye of Bill, Zimmer could never have a successful defense, right?

Yes...that is what I believe.

But.....that evaluation included key players like Ellis and Glover who were already on board the team before PArcells arrived on the scene.

PArcells kept some of the players and removed others.

Parcells also selected the defensive players over the last two years. And I believe that he also made selections last year with an eventualy move to the 3-4 in mind.

[Trip]

But at the end of the day we all know what drove the change in the department.


And that would be that it is simply what the boss prefers. Not that the 3-4 is any magical formula, or that we've never had any success with the 4-3, it's just what the boss likes.

[scottsp]

It would not make much sense to keep a defensive coordinator who was not someone the coach wanted to be part of the staff, particularly one who was not as familiar with a scheme the head coach wished to implement.

Bill Parcells could have gone and got any number of lackeys who had worked with this specific scheme before - coaches who were more familiar with the 3-4. Instead, he opted to go with someone who had not coached this specific defense before at the NFL level.

I don't care how familiar the coach is with the scheme. It makes absolutely no sense to keep a DC around in this situation if he's not valued by the head man. Because if he was not, it would be easy as hell to go get someone who knew the 3-4 better and had worked with it in the league before.

[AdamJT13]

Or rather...... YES !

Zimmer did not deserve to get fired because there was no need to bring in a DC that was familiar with the 3-4.....because PArcells already brought that to the table.

Your argument is simply ridiculous. It's as if you think all a defensive coordinator does is decide whether to play a 3-4 or a 4-3 -- and that actually coordinating the defense during a game is irrelevant. Parcells doesn't call the defensive plays, Zimmer does. If Parcells had ANY doubts about Zimmer's ability to coordinate the defense, he absolutely would have brought in a coordinator familiar with the 3-4, who knew how to call a game with a 3-4 defense. But Parcells KNEW that Zimmer is a very good defensive coordinator, so he had no reason to fire him. He knew why a defense that was so good in 2003 dropped off so much in 2004, and it had nothing to do with Zimmer.

If anything, this season proves that Zimmer is a good coordinator no matter what the scheme. Give him a defense that's not ravaged by injuries at key positions, and he'll turn it into one of the league's best.

[Mike 1967]

Here is what I believe

- We needed to make a major overhaul of our scheme and/or we needed to do a better job on draft day.

- If we were going to overhaul the Defensive Scheme, then we would need to bring in a new defensive mastermind to implement that scheme. Not count on an existing coordinator to "learn" the new scheme.

- In this instance we did overhaul the sheme and we overhauled the evaluation of players. Specifically we put a new scout management in place and implemented a 3-4 scheme for the first time in Dallas.

- But...Zimmer did not need to be replaced because Parcells was the mastermind behind the 3-4. Even if Parcells had hired a new DC, it would have been one of his old cronies. He would not hired a DC under the pretext that that DC would be the author and mastermind behind the implentation of the new scheme.

[Scotman]

I'll wade in. What the heck.

:)

I'll start off by saying I haven't been a fan of Zimmer's. I don't hate him, but I don't fawn after him either. Also, I have an extensive background in leadership, management and adminsitration. I'll finish my doctorate in the field soon (dissertation :mad:).

Mike, I get your point, flawed as it is. I don't think anyone believes that the defensive architect behind our new-look defense is Zimmer. Parcells is. But to equate Zimmer with a mid-level manager based on your experience isn't going to work. Not all management systems work in the manner you espouse.

For example, I had the opportunity this year to hire a guy to be my right hand. He had little experience in the areas that I needed him for. But, I knew he was smart and a hard worker. I knew the other hundred or so people under him would follow him. I told him my vision and goals. It was his job to get the job done. Not mine. If I was going to do it myself, I wouldn't have needed him.

At that point, he went to work learning and preparing. He has surpassed my expectations to this point. And that is credit to him, not me. If I were to take any credit, it would be for seeing the potential that lied in this one employee. But when that person realizes his/her potential, they should get the credit. Pretty simple in my book.

It is not nearly as easy to find someone capable of doing what Zimmer is doing as you say. Read Elbert Hubbard's A Message to Garcia. You can find it easily on the internet. Just a few pages long.

Mike, I don't post a lot but I believe from reading your posts you're an intelligent and thoughtful poster. But we've got two distinct things going on here. On one hand, you're arguing that Zimmer isn't the designer of the defense. You have done so strongly enough that it doesn't appear you're giving Zimmer his due. Second, there are those that are arguing that you don't create anything worth while in the NFL without teamwork. Not just on the field, but off. And they are arguing that you have to give credit all around.

For me, I give credit to the whole shooting match. From JJ on down to Rowdy. And here's to hoping that the defense keeps improving!

[Mike 1967]

Your argument is simply ridiculous. It's as if you think all a defensive coordinator does is decide whether to play a 3-4 or a 4-3 -- and that actually coordinating the defense during a game is irrelevant. Parcells doesn't call the defensive plays, Zimmer does. If Parcells had ANY doubts about Zimmer's ability to coordinate the defense, he absolutely would have brought in a coordinator familiar with the 3-4, who knew how to call a game with a 3-4 defense. But Parcells KNEW that Zimmer is a very good defensive coordinator, so he had no reason to fire him. He knew why a defense that was so good in 2003 dropped off so much in 2004, and it had nothing to do with Zimmer.

If anything, this season proves that Zimmer is a good coordinator no matter what the scheme. Give him a defense that's not ravaged by injuries at key positions, and he'll turn it into one of the league's best.

Wow...strong language from Adam. A very rare thing.....so my argument must be a good one ! :)

It is rediculous to think that Zimmer is the catalyst behind the defensive change and not Parcells.

Zimmer very well may be a great coach. But he was not the catalyst behind the move to the 3-4, nor was he the catalyst behind the recent drafts. The Catalyst was Parcells.

To say that that is rediculous...is rediculous.

[Trip]

Yes...that is what I believe.

But.....that evaluation included key players like Ellis and Glover who were already on board the team before PArcells arrived on the scene.

PArcells kept some of the players and removed others.

Parcells also selected the defensive players over the last two years. And I believe that he also made selections last year with an eventualy move to the 3-4 in mind.

It's not Zimmer's job to draft players or sign free agents. He plays the hand he's dealt, and he plays it well.

Parcells is looking good right now. But lets keep a few points in mind, please.

1. We had a pretty darn good defense in 2003 and Parcells had little input in building it or directing it.

2. We had a miserable defense in 2004. Why? Because of Parcells talent evaluation, partly. Remember, it was he who decided to ride it out with Peter Hunter, and little depth behind him, against the wishes of HIS boss.

We run the 3-4 now. It's what Parcells knows and likes. In your management analogies, this would make him a micro-manager.

[AdamJT13]

Wow...strong language from Adam. A very rare thing.....so my argument must be a good one ! :)

Or the opposite.

It is rediculous to think that Zimmer is the catalyst behind the defensive change and not Parcells.

Zimmer very well may be a great coach. But he was not the catalyst behind the move to the 3-4, nor was he the catalyst behind the recent drafts. The Catalyst was Parcells.

To say that that is rediculous...is rediculous.

Nobody ever said Zimmer was the "mastermind" or "catalyst." He's the defensive coordinator, not the "defensive mastermind."

You still haven't explained your theory about Parcells not needing a "real" defensive coordinator -- especially considering that Parcells doesn't call the defensive schemes.

So, Mike, who tells the defense what to do on each play?

[Yeagermeister]

This is not meant to offend and I hope it doesn't.

I would hate to work for you.

Let me see if I have this straight. You're Parcells. You have a vision, directive, goal, demand, or whatever you want to call it, to get this team ready to play the 3-4.

You give this task to me. I work my butt off. Project is paying off.

You and only you deserve the pedastal?

Frick that. Give me a team working together any day. Seems pretty clear to me that is exactly what he is doing.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this at all.

You just decribed my boss :(

[scottsp]

Here is what I believe

- We needed to make a major overhaul of our scheme and/or we needed to do a better job on draft day.

- If we were going to overhaul the Defensive Scheme, then we would need to bring in a new defensive mastermind to implement that scheme. Not count on an existing coordinator to "learn" the new scheme.

- In this instance we did overhaul the sheme and we overhauled the evaluation of players. Specifically we put a new scout management in place and implemented a 3-4 scheme for the first time in Dallas.

- But...Zimmer did not need to be replaced because Parcells was the mastermind behind the 3-4. Even if Parcells had hired a new DC, it would have been one of his old cronies. He would not hired a DC under the pretext that that DC would be the author and mastermind behind the implentation of the new scheme.


If this is what you truly believe, you severely undervalue the role of an NFL coordinator.

This is not a special situation unlike any other in the league. Mike Zimmer is not some high-priced yes man who performs minimal tasks as the DC. He is charged with developing a specific game plan each and every week, just as any coordinator is expected to.

Such positions in the league aren't given to coaches an organization deems merely as a caretaker. They're entrusted to people whom the club and the head coach feel can effectively coordinate a unit for battle.

You can minimize the effect Zimmer has on the defense if you want. But the fact remains, he is heading up this unit and is doing so rather well. That much is certain. Are they this far along under another DC? We have no way of knowing that at all.

[Mike 1967]

I'll wade in. What the heck.

:)

I'll start off by saying I haven't been a fan of Zimmer's. I don't hate him, but I don't fawn after him either. Also, I have an extensive background in leadership, management and adminsitration. I'll finish my doctorate in the field soon (dissertation :mad:). Mike, I get your point, flawed as it is.

I suppose that a doctorate is supposed to establish a precedent of authority that cannot be argued against.

Suffice to say that my experience is that those who teach in higher levels of college do so because they cannot survive in the real world. :)

I don't think anyone believes that the defensive architect behind our new-look defense is Zimmer. Parcells is.!

Good ! Because that is exactly my argument.

But to equate Zimmer with a mid-level manager based on your experience isn't going to work. Not all management systems work in the manner you espouse.

For example, I had the opportunity this year to hire a guy to be my right hand. He had little experience in the areas that I needed him for. But, I knew he was smart and a hard worker. I knew the other hundred or so people under him would follow him. I told him my vision and goals. It was his job to get the job done. Not mine. If I was going to do it myself, I wouldn't have needed him.

At that point, he went to work learning and preparing. He has surpassed my expectations to this point. And that is credit to him, not me. If I were to take any credit, it would be for seeing the potential that lied in this one employee. But when that person realizes his/her potential, they should get the credit. Pretty simple in my book.

It is not nearly as easy to find someone capable of doing what Zimmer is doing as you say. Read Elbert Hubbard's A Message to Garcia. You can find it easily on the internet. Just a few pages long. .!

I have no issue with what you have stated above. But you have not provided me with enough information to relate it to the topic/debate at hand.

I also will be a bit more specific in respect to my analogy.

In my analogy I have a department that is running incorrectly. In this analogy an ISO auditor comes in and fails the department for various flawed processes. In this instance the company has to bring someone in to rewrite the procedures that the company operates by.

In this example, it would not be logical to expect that a hardworking individual with no experience would be able to write procedures for that department. This is exactly the same dynamic that drives the experience requirement on most every job. Because job experience directly dictates job knowledge which directly dictates sound process.

I also never said that all management systems work in the manner that I espouse. I was simply developing an analogy in an effort to better communicate my point. Wether or not my management experience relates directly with your management experience in no way undermines the analogy.



Mike, I don't post a lot but I believe from reading your posts you're an intelligent and thoughtful poster. But we've got two distinct things going on here. On one hand, you're arguing that Zimmer isn't the designer of the defense. You have done so strongly enough that it doesn't appear you're giving Zimmer his due. Second, there are those that are arguing that you don't create anything worth while in the NFL without teamwork. Not just on the field, but off. And they are arguing that you have to give credit all around.

For me, I give credit to the whole shooting match. From JJ on down to Rowdy. And here's to hoping that the defense keeps improving!

I would direct you to the origination of this thread. The context begins there.

The original issue is not teamwork. The original issue was questioning those that called for Zimmer to be fired last year.

I was, and am, answering that statement with sound debate to support my position last year that a change was needed.

Last year I viewed Zimmer as the architect and mastermind of the 4-3 system being employed. This year I view Parcells as the architect and mastermind of the 3-4 scheme being employed.

It would appear that we are arguing over semantics while agreeing on the primary issue's of this debate.

[scottsp]

Being a catalyst has nothing to do with it. The man has taken a scheme he has never coached before and rolled with it. He's learning, just as the players are. And also like the players, Zimmer seems to be getting a better handle on this 3-4.

I have done my fair share of ragging on the man, but I gotta give Zim credit for what he's done to this point. He deserves a ton. What he is doing is not easy at all. And I am happy as hell for him right about now.

[Mike 1967]

Being a catalyst has nothing to do with it. The man has taken a scheme he has never coached before and rolled with it. He's learning, just as the players are. And also like the players, Zimmer seems to be getting a better handle on this 3-4.

I have done my fair share of ragging on the man, but I gotta give Zim credit for what he's done to this point. He deserves a ton. What he is doing is not easy at all. And I am happy as hell for him right about now.

Being a catalyst has nothing to do with what ?

[Mike 1967]

If this is what you truly believe, you severely undervalue the role of an NFL coordinator.

This is not a special situation unlike any other in the league. Mike Zimmer is not some high-priced yes man who performs minimal tasks as the DC. He is charged with developing a specific game plan each and every week, just as any coordinator is expected to.

Such positions in the league aren't given to coaches an organization deems merely as a caretaker. They're entrusted to people whom the club and the head coach feel can effectively coordinate a unit for battle.

You can minimize the effect Zimmer has on the defense if you want. But the fact remains, he is heading up this unit and is doing so rather well. That much is certain. Are they this far along under another DC? We have no way of knowing that at all.

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.

[Mike 1967]

It would not make much sense to keep a defensive coordinator who was not someone the coach wanted to be part of the staff, particularly one who was not as familiar with a scheme the head coach wished to implement.

Bill Parcells could have gone and got any number of lackeys who had worked with this specific scheme before - coaches who were more familiar with the 3-4. Instead, he opted to go with someone who had not coached this specific defense before at the NFL level.

I don't care how familiar the coach is with the scheme. It makes absolutely no sense to keep a DC around in this situation if he's not valued by the head man. Because if he was not, it would be easy as hell to go get someone who knew the 3-4 better and had worked with it in the league before.

I never said that Zimmer was not valued by the head man.

[Doomsday101]

Mike BP brought in the 3-4 no one argues that but it is Zimmer job to make it work and he has done that and this unit is playing very well under Zimmer.

[Mike 1967]

Are they this far along under another DC? We have no way of knowing that at all.

That is not my question.

The core issue that I am debating is that we would not be this far along if Parcells were not in the mix. It is parcells that is the primary catalyst on the defensive improvement...not the DC.

So the question I am asking is...how far along would we be if PArcells were not here. And my answer is not nearly as far as we are with him here.

[Mike 1967]

Mike BP brought in the 3-4 no one argues that but it is Zimmer job to make it work and he has done that and this unit is playing very well under Zimmer.

It is working mainly because of Parcells...not because of Zimmer.

[Mike 1967]

Being a catalyst has nothing to do with it. The man has taken a scheme he has never coached before and rolled with it. He's learning, just as the players are. And also like the players, Zimmer seems to be getting a better handle on this 3-4.

For the record....I do agree with your assesment above. He has done a hell of a job adapting to a new system.

My issue last year was primarily with the system being employed...not necessarily with the person coaching it.

[Scotman]

No Mike, mentioning the doctorate certainly doesn't mean it can't be argued with. I know people with a doctorate that can't find their butt with both hands. I was only clearing enough ground to establish that I do have some back ground knowledge in management. And shame on you if you think that all of those people teaching at higher institutions are there because they can't do it themselves. It's exactly the opposite, for the most part. Many of those in higher education have, as their first priority, new research and work in the field. Teaching is secondary. Produce, publish or perish, as they say. There's nothing there about teaching. Trust me.

As far as not providing enough detail in my analogy, I'm not sure what else I could have said. Don't forget, I don't disagree with you about whether or not Zimmer is the designer, only that you have to give him some credit for pulling everything together.

I'll give you the one about the original intent of the thread. It sure appeared to be calling out those that wanted him gone. I would have been satisfied had Bill brought in someone else. So count me in that group. But at this point, I also readily admit I'm glad he's here. Glad I didn't get my way. Obviously, Bill thought he needed him.

Doesn't look like I'm head coach material after all. :(

[Doomsday101]

It is working mainly because of Parcells...not because of Zimmer.

Zimmer is getting the job done, he calls the plays and he gets these guys prepaired that is what a coordinator does. If you choose to discredit the job that Zimmer has done then so be it.

[Mike 1967]

No Mike, mentioning the doctorate certainly doesn't mean it can't be argued with. I know people with a doctorate that can't find their butt with both hands. I was only clearing enough ground to establish that I do have some back ground knowledge in management. And shame on you if you think that all of those people teaching at higher institutions are there because they can't do it themselves. It's exactly the opposite, for the most part. Many of those in higher education have, as their first priority, new research and work in the field. Teaching is secondary. Produce, publish or perish, as they say. There's nothing there about teaching. Trust me.

As far as not providing enough detail in my analogy, I'm not sure what else I could have said. Don't forget, I don't disagree with you about whether or not Zimmer is the designer, only that you have to give him some credit for pulling everything together.

I'll give you the one about the original intent of the thread. It sure appeared to be calling out those that wanted him gone. I would have been satisfied had Bill brought in someone else. So count me in that group. But at this point, I also readily admit I'm glad he's here. Glad I didn't get my way. Obviously, Bill thought he needed him.

Doesn't look like I'm head coach material after all. :(

I have no issue with Zimmer either.

Personally I wanted the scheme to be overhauled.

If I had the following two choices then I would have chosen # 2

(1) If we keep Zimmer then we keep the existing scheme
(2) The only way to implement a new scheme would be to get rid of Zimmer.

I personally had no issue keeping Zimmer if we could change the scheme and keep him too. But in my opinion this would not have been a workeable scenario if the head coach was not already an expert in the 3-4 scheme.

[Mike 1967]

Zimmer is getting the job done, he calls the plays and he gets these guys prepaired that is what a coordinator does. If you choose to discredit the job that Zimmer has done then so be it.

Yes...Zimmer is doing the job that he is being asked to do. I am not discrediting that he is doing his job.

But his job is not the primary reason behind the success that we have seen

In the over all scheme of things....this change to the 3-4 would not have been succesful if Big Bill were not in the picture.

[Scotman]

I have no issue with Zimmer either.

Personally I wanted the scheme to be overhauled.

If I had the following two choices then I would have chosen # 2

(1) If we keep Zimmer then we keep the existing scheme
(2) The only way to implement a new scheme would be to get rid of Zimmer.

I personally had no issue keeping Zimmer if we could change the scheme and keep him too. But in my opinion this would not have been a workeable scenario if the head coach was not already an expert in the 3-4 scheme.

Fair enough. If you look back at my threads about the 4/3 3/4 when the shift began, it'll be obvious I don't have enough knowledge to say whether or not your statement is correct. You probably know a lot more about that than I do.

I just don't think BP gets all the credit, either. It's got to be spread around. Some for BP. Some for Zimmer. Some for Jerry. Some for the twins in the beer commercial, too.

[Hostile]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.Absolutely 100% incorrect. Not one person who has debated with you in this thread has said Parcells doesn't deserve credit. Not one single, solitary person. You on the other hand are saying Zimmer deserves little to none. To the point of you have him fired, when anyone can see he clearly isn't.

So, you're essentially saying that Bill Belicheck, Marvin Lewis, Gregg Williams, no one else in the NFL could successfully transition the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

There's at least 1 other guy who can and that is apparently Mike Zimmer because he's done it. At Parcells' direction, yes. I'll grant you that. But the task was still his. A blueprint without someone to make it come to life is just paper.

No one is so brilliant that they can tell you something and with no effort on your own you make it succeed. Zimmer must be doing something right.

[scottsp]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.


No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place.

We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation.

Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either.

If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.

[Hostile]

It is working mainly because of Parcells...not because of Zimmer.I'll bet you Parcells himself would disagree with you.

[Hostile]

No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place.

We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation.

Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either.

If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.Best post in the thread so far.

[Mike 1967]

I 'll bet you Parcells himself would disagree with you.

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"

[Hostile]

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"No way. If in his mind it is all about him and his ideas the team would fail. They'd quit playing for him.

The statement you used as an example works to my argument, not yours. He's saying, "I believe in you," not "I'm going to make you believe in me."

[Trip]

I view it differently

I am not minimizing the effect that Zimmer has on the defense......others are minimizing the effect that Parcells has on this defense.

Bottom line is that the move to the 3-4 would not be having the success that it has without PArcells in the equation.

Replace Zimmer with another DC and you would basically get the same results if Parcells were still in the equation...and if PArcells was the one selecting the DC.

But that's where your logic is flawed. We moved to the 3-4 because of Parcells' directive, and to say it would not be as successful without him is irrelevent because it wouldn' have happened without him.

[Mike 1967]

No one is minimizing the effect Parcells has on the defense because he is the primary reason the 3-4 has made its way here. No Parcells, odds are this transformation does not take place. We all know why this defense in in place. We understand the the impact an infusion of talent brings to the table. Of course those things are essential to the equation..

Then we are on the same page. This is the only point that I am debating.

And I am debating it in defense of those who were calling for a defensive change last year.




Zimmer simply deserves a fair share of the credit. To state something such as, "since Parcells was here, we didn't need to hire a defensive mastermind" is belittling the contribution Mike Zimmer has made to this unit's success. And it's not necessarily true either. .

How is that belittling ???

Are you saying that Zimmer was a mastermind of the 3-4 ? Surely you are not.

It is what it is....Zimmer was not a master mind of the 3-4. We can surely all agree on that.

And it is not belittling to say that he was not a mastermind. It is also not belittling to say that it would be logically preferable to have a mastermind if we were going to make that type of major overhaul.




If Bill Parcells is going to give himself and this club the best shot to make a successful passage to the 3-4, he is going to go with a person he feels is best suited to lead that transition. To coach it, teach it, and coordinate gameplans week in, week out.

Obviously, Mike Zimmer is that guy for Bill Parcells. Because Parcells has enough contacts and enough reach throughout the league to get any number of qualified coaches who are well-versed in the 3-4. And there are plenty of qualified young coaches who would die for the shot to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

This says a lot for Mike Zimmer.

Agreed

[Mike 1967]

But that's where your logic is flawed. We moved to the 3-4 because of Parcells' directive, and to say it would not be as successful without him is irrelevent because it wouldn' have happened without him.

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

[Trip]

EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Is that what this is all about? I don't think anyone in this whole thread is saying that Parcells hasn't contributed to this defense.

[Next_years_Champs]

Yes..he would publically disagree. But in his mind he would not.

But that is how Parcells operates.

"I will die before I let you fail"

The world is full of poorly managed work forces and evidently your experienced in poor management theory. Nothing you have said is correct including your comment above.

Parcells is a proven master of people management, except he's not dealing with middle class working stiffs. He's working with millionaire players and coaches who have chosen one of the most competitive fields imaginable.

You don't manage people on that level by erecting borders or fences giving them a very narrow input. You manage people on that level by communicating a goal then delegating and empowering those people whose job it is to reach those goals. Just as any successful manager knows Parcells understands that it takes a total effort from everyone to be successful at his level.

Parcells wouldn't privately or publicly agree with you, he would laugh at your ridiculous opinions as to what a successful manager is.

[scottsp]

you saying that Zimmer was a mastermind of the 3-4 ? Surely you are not.

It is what it is....Zimmer was not a master mind of the 3-4. We can surely all agree on that.

And it is not belittling to say that he was not a mastermind. It is also not belittling to say that it would be logically preferable to have a mastermind if we were going to make that type of major overhaul.


Nice twist. You were belittling his contribution. That is all I said.

You might assume certain things to be true, such as Bill's reasoning to go with Zimmer. But you don't know for certain why he chose to go that route.

We do know Bill chose him. And we know Zimmer is doing a good job.

What we don't know is what another "mastermind" might or might not do with this unit. All we can do is speculate.

[Mike 1967]

The world is full of poorly managed work forces and evidently your experienced in poor management theory. Nothing you have said is correct including your comment above.

Parcells is a proven master of people management, except he's not dealing with middle class working stiffs. He's working with millionaire players and coaches who have chosen one of the most competitive fields imaginable.

You don't manage people on that level by erecting borders or fences giving them a very narrow input. You manage people on that level by communicating a goal then delegating and empowering those people whose job it is to reach those goals. Just as any successful manager knows Parcells understands that it takes a total effort from everyone to be successful at his level.

Parcells wouldn't privately or publicly agree with you, he would laugh at your ridiculous opinions as to what a successful manager is.

I have no idea what poor management theory is.

You also seem to have taken my analogy way out of context.

In an operation you manage by establishing standard operating procedures. Think of a traffic laws. There are basic traffic laws that everyone must follow in order to obtain a level of operation required to allow for a large number of cars to operate safely and effectively.

Without these traffic laws chaos would soon be in play and traffic would come to a screeching halt.
The specific management analogy I am using would be best associated with a startup company. You are starting a company from scratch with no existing standard operating procedures. In this type of environment it would be necessary to employ someone who had experience in the type of business I was looking to launch. It would be necessary to have experience in order to derive realistic operating policies.

If, however, you were hiring a manager to come in and manage an existing department that already had SOP in place, then it would not be as important to hire someone with previous experience. Because in that instance the manager would simply have to follow the pre-existing procedures.

The 3-4 scheme is a startup. There was no pre-existing system in place within Dallas to work off of.

This was the crux of my analogy.

[Hostile]

I have no idea what poor management theory is.

You also seem to have taken my analogy way out of context.

In an operation you manage by establishing standard operating procedures. Think of a traffic laws. There are basic traffic laws that everyone must follow in order to obtain a level of operation required to allow for a large number of cars to operate safely and effectively.

Without these traffic laws chaos would soon be in play and traffic would come to a screeching halt.
The specific management analogy I am using would be best associated with a startup company. You are starting a company from scratch with no existing standard operating procedures. In this type of environment it would be necessary to employ someone who had experience in the type of business I was looking to launch. It would be necessary to have experience in order to derive realistic operating policies.

If, however, you were hiring a manager to come in and manage an existing department that already had SOP in place, then it would not be as important to hire someone with previous experience. Because in that instance the manager would simply have to follow the pre-existing procedures.

The 3-4 scheme is a startup. There was no pre-existing system in place within Dallas to work off of.

This was the crux of my analogy.I do not agree with that analogy at all. You're basically saying we could have hired me to be the DC and with Parcells' blueprints I could build the same defense and have the same success. (I used myself so no one would be offended.)

No sir. I'm not stupid about football but no amount of preparation would have got me to draw the same success out of this D as Zimmer has.

Parcells wants the best people he can get around him. He feels Zimmer was his best option there or in switching schemes he would have found someone else to take the task. It's really just that simple.

[Mike 1967]

Is that what this is all about? I don't think anyone in this whole thread is saying that Parcells hasn't contributed to this defense.

I cannot speak for others on this thread. But the basis of my argument is very simple. The original poster/thread starter made the following statements:

TITLE: Fire Zimmer Now!!!

"His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better."

My interpretation of his post was quite simple.

INTERPRETATION: Those who called for Zimmers head last year were wrong because the defense is performing at a high level.

This argument is flawed because it assumes that the Zimmer is the one responsible for the defenses success. It is stating that (a) the defense is good (b) Zimmer is the one responsible for it being good and thus (a+b) = it was rediculous to ever question Zimmers abilities.

All I am debating is that if you are going to give anyone credit for this defense..then that person should be PArcells, not Zimmer. And my point is in direct response to this statement.

I did not start this thread by stating that Zimmer sucked and should get no credit. I simply am pointing out the error in the original posters statement. And I am doing so because I was one of those calling for a change last year.

I personally have nothing against Zimmer. Last year my line of thought was simply that if you change schemes you change DC's...because this is normally what occurs. But...it is great that Zimmer was open to learn a new system. This is rare in my experience. Most DC's and coaches appear to have their own fingerprints that they wish to employ to the offensive or defensive systems.

Now...perhaps I have mis-interpreted the original posters intent. If the original poster was saying....

"See, you people who said we could not have a good defense with Zimmer were wrong because he is still here and we still have a good defense."

Then I apologize for mis-interpreting his statement. Because if he did say that then I have no issue with the statement.

Because I personally had no issue with Zimmer staying when I knew that the system was going to be the 3-4 system...and that Parcells was going to be the architect of that system.

[Mike 1967]

I do not agree with that analogy at all. You're basically saying we could have hired me to be the DC and with Parcells' blueprints I could build the same defense and have the same success. (I used myself so no one would be offended.)

No sir. I'm not stupid about football but no amount of preparation would have got me to draw the same success out of this D as Zimmer has.

Parcells wants the best people he can get around him. He feels Zimmer was his best option there or in switching schemes he would have found someone else to take the task. It's really just that simple.

If I were saying that then I would be incorrect.

There is still a skill level that is required to perform certain tasks. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

Zimmer is obviously a good teacher and sport manager, or he would not be where he is.

I am not saying that just because the SOP is in place you can plug anyone into a management role. In my analogy even that manager would still require certain management and leadership skills. And the specific skills would be dictated by the job requirements.

Zimmers job no doubt requires very special skills.

But the basic X's and O's of the defense have been defined by Parcells. And those definitions are based of years of succesful experience with this system.

Zimmer could very well become an architect of this system after a few years experience. Heck..maybe even 1 year for all I know.

[Mike 1967]

Absolutely 100% incorrect. Not one person who has debated with you in this thread has said Parcells doesn't deserve credit. Not one single, solitary person. You on the other hand are saying Zimmer deserves little to none. To the point of you have him fired, when anyone can see he clearly isn't.

So, you're essentially saying that Bill Belicheck, Marvin Lewis, Gregg Williams, no one else in the NFL could successfully transition the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

There's at least 1 other guy who can and that is apparently Mike Zimmer because he's done it. At Parcells' direction, yes. I'll grant you that. But the task was still his. A blueprint without someone to make it come to life is just paper.

No one is so brilliant that they can tell you something and with no effort on your own you make it succeed. Zimmer must be doing something right.

Wrong !!!!!

You have gone down a rabbit trail.

My original counterpoint was (and still is) in direct response to the first post in this thread. Period.

What you have chosen to add to subtract to it is your problem...not mine.

[Mike 1967]

No way. If in his mind it is all about him and his ideas the team would fail. They'd quit playing for him.

The statement you used as an example works to my argument, not yours. He's saying, "I believe in you," not "I'm going to make you believe in me."

LOL

Why do you think Parcells has the reputation of a control freak ? Give me a break.

Yes he believes in you. He believes that you are on board his bus and can get the job done.

[Trip]

I cannot speak for others on this thread.

True, and I certainly shouldn't have either.

But if you wanted Zimmer to go, why were you okay with him staying when you found out we were switching to 3-4?

[Mike 1967]

Nice twist. You were belittling his contribution. That is all I said.

You might assume certain things to be true, such as Bill's reasoning to go with Zimmer. But you don't know for certain why he chose to go that route.

We do know Bill chose him. And we know Zimmer is doing a good job.

What we don't know is what another "mastermind" might or might not do with this unit. All we can do is speculate.

No...I was not belittling his contribution. I was counterpointing the first post in this thread that was implying that Zimmer was the reason behind the defensive success.

In this case my post was the egg and the original post was the chicken. And in this case, the chicken came before the egg.

[Hostile]

Wrong !!!!!

You have gone down a rabbit trail.

My original counterpoint was (and still is) in direct response to the first post in this thread. Period.

What you have chosen to add to subtract to it is your problem...not mine.You still don't grasp the fact that the original post was tongue in cheek sarcasm?

[Hostile]

LOL

Why do you think Parcells has the reputation of a control freak ? Give me a break.

Yes he believes in you. He believes that you are on board his bus and can get the job done.Parcells is Captain Ahab?

I don't see it that way at all.

[Mike 1967]

True, and I certainly shouldn't have either.

But if you wanted Zimmer to go, why were okay with him staying when you found out we were switching to 3-4?

Because I truly did not comprehend that a DC would stay and learn a new system. The only reason I did not comprehend it was because I have never seen it before.

My experience has been that a DC or Head Coach has a very specific personality or fingerprint that they bring to a defensive or offensive scheme. I could not, for example, see Spurier employing a power running game...or Martz employing a power running game...or Buddy Ryan employing a 3-4.

So in my mind a new scheme meant a new coordinator. Especially since that was the scheme that Zimmer had been working within for so many years.

It did not cross my mind that you could keep the DC and simply change the scheme. Once I saw that possibility I really had no issue with Zimmer.

Because ultimately my issue was in two area's: (1) the scheme was old and tired (2) we were doing a poor job of selecting defensive talent. Specifically DE's.

Since we could change the scheme and still keep Zimmer...I had no issue's. And since Parcells would be controlling (along with Jerry) the defensive personnel selections....why would I have any reason to fear Zimmer.

And like others have said. If I have confidence in PArcells, then why would that not translate into confidence in his choice of DC.

Zimmer obviously is a good coach...or (like others have already said) PArcells would not have chosen him.

[Mike 1967]

You still don't grasp the fact that the original post was tongue in cheek sarcasm?

Nope...I did not know that.

Are you saying that the original poster is not taking a true stab at those who questioned Zimmer and the defense last year ?

[Mike 1967]

Parcells is Captain Ahab?

I don't see it that way at all.

Yes..he is kind of like captain Ahab. It is his ship...and he makes the rules.

But...Captain Ahab was obviously deranged. I am not saying that Parcells is deranged.

[Hostile]

Nope...I did not know that.

Are you saying that the original poster is not taking a true stab at those who questioned Zimmer and the defense last year ?Here's what he said.

His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better.You don't get the irony? How about the Eagles giving up 4 TDs to Jake Plummer alone yesterday in 1 game, let alone 5?

Fog clearing?

It was a sarcastic post about those who hate Zimmer for whatever reason and still do despite the fact his D is playing pretty good football. Like him or hate him, fien with me. At least acknowledge he's doing the job entrusted to him. And way better than people had a right to expect given his inexperience with the system.

If he learned it this fast isn't it just possible that the guy really is a pretty damned good coach? Isn't it possible that is why Jerry and Bill coaxed him out of taking the Nebraska job? Isn't it possible that the definition of him as a DC was just a bit off base?

I'd say the club thinks so. I'd say the results say so. It seems real obvious to me.

You don't ask incompetent personnel to stick around. You don't ask the same incompetent personnel to undertake the biggest task of the off season.

That just doesn't make a lick of sense and never has.

[Mike 1967]

Here's what he said.

You don't get the irony? How about the Eagles giving up 4 TDs to Jake Plummer alone yesterday in 1 game, let alone 5?

Fog clearing?

It was a sarcastic post about those who hate Zimmer for whatever reason and still do despite the fact his D is playing pretty good football. Like him or hate him, fien with me. At least acknowledge he's doing the job entrusted to him. And way better than people had a right to expect given his inexperience with the system.

If he learned it this fast isn't it just possible that the guy really is a pretty damned good coach? Isn't it possible that is why Jerry and Bill coaxed him out of taking the Nebraska job? Isn't it possible that the definition of him as a DC was just a bit off base?

I'd say the club thinks so. I'd say the results say so. It seems real obvious to me.

You don't ask incompetent personnel to stick around. You don't ask the same incompetent personnel to undertake the biggest task of the off season.

That just doesn't make a lick of sense and never has.

It was obviously sarcastic. And it was aimed at those who questioned Zimmer as DC.

I questioned Zimmer as DC last year...so I debated the original posters thought process behind his statement.

I stand by my message.

The only thing that has cleared is that my original interpretation, of the original posters statement, was correct.

I have no issue's with the points you have stated above regarding Zimmers abilities as a coach.

Again..I am counterpointing the original post that states that the success of the defense is proof that Zimmer is the man...because Zimmer is the reason behind the success. Sarcastic message yes...but that was the point being made.

And I will argue it all day long (that Zimmer is not the reason behind the defensive success. He may be a part of the whole..but he is not the catalyst)...I will argue that PArcells was the primary catalyst, regardless of what rabbit trails you attempt to create in an effort to win an argument. :)

[Mike 1967]

I'd say the club thinks so. I'd say the results say so. It seems real obvious to me.

You don't ask incompetent personnel to stick around. You don't ask the same incompetent personnel to undertake the biggest task of the off season.

That just doesn't make a lick of sense and never has.

Yes..you keep saying it....I'm just trying to figure out who you are debating

You keep setting up a straw man and knocking it down.

My dog in this fight is simple: PArcells is the catalyst behind the defensive success.

My dog was introduced in direct response to the first post on this thread.

[Jimz31]

I must admit that I didn't much care for Zimmer a couple of years ago, but I think he has done a GREAT job....especially since this is the first time that he has had to implement a 3-4 defense. Granted, we aren't running it 100% of the time...more of a hybrid defense, but he has had the #1 ranking a couple of years back. Yes, Campo helped him to acheive that....yes Campo.

Our defense is pretty stout and look at who we have playing....alot of very young guys.

[Hostile]

It was obviously sarcastic. And it was aimed at those who questioned Zimmer as DC.

I questioned Zimmer as DC last year...so I debated the original posters thought process behind his statement.

I stand by my message.

The only thing that has cleared is that my original interpretation, of the original posters statement, was correct.

I have no issue's with the points you have stated above regarding Zimmers abilities as a coach.

Again..I am counterpointing the original post that states that the success of the defense is proof that Zimmer is the man...because Zimmer is the reason behind the success. Sarcastic message yes...but that was the point being made.

And I will argue it all day long...regardless of what rabbit trails you attempt to create in an effort to win an argument. :)By all means, show me where he (the author of the thread) said he's (Zimmer that is) the sole credit for the success of the D.

That's your interpretation, so back it up.

All last year Zimmer was the only flaw in our defense. That was the never ending mantra. Injuries be damned. Shoe is on the other foot, change the rules. Convenient.

He's simply saying the man deserves some credit. That's all any of us are telling you. Call that a rabbit trail if you wish. It changes nothing.

There's no evidence that an incompetent is in charge of the Cowboys' defense or has no control over it at all. Not one little shred of evidence.

That is all we're saying.

[Trip]

My dog in this fight is simple: PArcells is the catalyst behind the defensive success.



But that's an undebatable point, if you believe he was most responsible for choosing the free agents and draft choices, which I do.

The same statement could be true for last year: Parcells is the catalyst behind the defensive meltwown.

[Mike 1967]

The same statement could be true for last year: Parcells is the catalyst behind the defensive meltwown.

To a certain extent ... yes...

But with one major difference. The system being employed last year was not his own...it was one he inherited.

If it fails now...then it is a different story.

[Hostile]

To a certain extent ... yes...

But with one major difference. The system being employed last year was not his own...it was one he inherited.

If it fails now...then it is a different story.Wow.

I'd love to have that kind of autonomy.

[Mike 1967]

By all means, show me where he (the author of the thread) said he's (Zimmer that is) the sole credit for the success of the D.

That's your interpretation, so back it up.

All last year Zimmer was the only flaw in our defense. That was the never ending mantra. Injuries be damned. Shoe is on the other foot, change the rules. Convenient.

He's simply saying the man deserves some credit. That's all any of us are telling you. Call that a rabbit trail if you wish. It changes nothing.

There's no evidence that an incompetent is in charge of the Cowboys' defense or has no control over it at all. Not one little shred of evidence.

That is all we're saying.

It is simple hermeneutics

Fire Zimmer Now!!!
His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!!
Man we could do so much better.

This is obviously a sarcastic statement that is making a jibe at anyone who had previously questioned Zimmer as DC.

Fire Zimmer now because his defense has given up 4 touchdowns in the last 5 games. Man we could do much better...

4 touchdowns in 5 games is obviously a very good statistic. So the poster is obviously using that stat to support his position that to question Zimmer was clearly wrong. The obvious conclusion drawn from this statement is that Zimmer is the one responsible for the defensive success.

It is also obvious, based on the following 4-5 responses, that this translation was clear to others besides myself.

That begs the question.....why do we assume that Zimmer is the reason behind the success of our defense this year.

If we are going to choose a primary source of the success...(Which is what this poster did)...then why would we not choose PArcells instead of Zimmer. And for obvious reasons.

If the poster was not saying this...then he needs to do a better job of written communication.

And if neither you or anyone else is saying this...then there is nothing for us to debate.

[Wolverine]

Parcells should be getting the credit for our Defense since he is the one who is really running it. Parcells did not want Henson or Romo running our offense cuz they had no experience and did not wanna go through some years till they were good. He went with Bledsoe cuz Bledsoe has been around awhile and is a good proven QB.

The same for Zimmer. Zimmer sucked anyways. But Zimmer is a rookie with no experience in the 3-4. So like Parcells is not gonna let a rookie QB run this offense he aint gonna let some rookie to the 3-4 run our D.

I think BP let Zimmer have a chance at first but when he saw how totally lost he was that is when BP took over and that is why you see a much better D now.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! !!!!

[Hostile]

:lmao2:

I was gonna respond but why bother? I'm done. It's like talking into an oscilating fan.

In the absence of logic, insert paranoia. In the face of facts, shout louder.

You guys can have the last word. Enjoy.

[THUMPER]

My hope is that some college team offers Zimmer a job as their HC and he takes it this time.

[Zimmy Lives]

:lmao2:

I was gonna respond but why bother? I'm done. It's like talking into an oscilating fan.

In the absence of logic, insert paranoia. In the face of facts, shout louder.

You guys can have the last word. Enjoy.

Hostile, it is futile arguing will these people. They remind me of my burro, Pedro. You see, Pedro, he is one stubborn mule. I once fed him carrots from Walmart and it upset his stomach. Now Pedro, he refuses to take carrots from me. He only wants carrots from my father, Pablo. He refuses to even look at the carrots I try to feed him even though they are the same savory carrots (bought from Simon David) he receives from my father. No matter how hard I try and convince him, Pedro will always believe that I will feed him bad carrots even though I have improved their quality.

Let those that question Zimmer continue to believe like Pedro.

[Vinnie2u]

I didn't realize that starting this thread would cause such a reaction on this board... But I like it. My main reason for this thread was that I noticed that last year and earlier this year, Zimmer was getting 99% of the blame for the defenses deficiencies. Now that things seem to have been turned around, Big Bill seems to be getting all the credit. I belive that the truth is some where in the middle. I know it's Parcell's scheme but Zim has to do the game planning, watch the film and call the defensive signals as the game unfolds. There is no way in hell that Bill can Micro-manage all aspects of a game. There are too many things going on at game time. I'm not a expert but I believe a good head coach puts a team in the best position to win by surrounding himself with good coaches and players. Then he should watch over them, making sure
his scheme is being executed, but stay far away enough not to undermine their authority.

[Sarge]

:lmao2:

I was gonna respond but why bother? I'm done. It's like talking into an oscilating fan.

In the absence of logic, insert paranoia. In the face of facts, shout louder.

You guys can have the last word. Enjoy.

Yep - they didn't (and wouldn't) give Zimmer any credit a few years ago when the defense ranked right at the top (with MUCH less talent than we have now) and they aren't going to give him any credit now.

#1 - Many of them don't 'get it.'

#2 - If they DO get it - they aren't going to admit it now.


We have one of the best defenses in the league so............get rid of Zimmer???

:rolleyes:

[Mike 1967]

Hostile, it is futile arguing will these people. They remind me of my burro, Pedro. You see, Pedro, he is one stubborn mule. I once fed him carrots from Walmart and it upset his stomach. Now Pedro, he refuses to take carrots from me. He only wants carrots from my father, Pablo. He refuses to even look at the carrots I try to feed him even though they are the same savory carrots (bought from Simon David) he receives from my father. No matter how hard I try and convince him, Pedro will always believe that I will feed him bad carrots even though I have improved their quality.

Let those that question Zimmer continue to believe like Pedro.

Your solution with your hard headed burro is simple.

Simply tie Pedro up and stop feeding him. Offer him carrots from your hand several times a day.

Eventually Pedro's hunger will overshadow his fear from the memory of the bad carrots.

Once he starts taking carrots from your hand again, make sure and feed him several times over a couple of days before you return him back to his regular feeding regimen.

[SuspectCorner]

Absolutely 100% incorrect. Not one person who has debated with you in this thread has said Parcells doesn't deserve credit. Not one single, solitary person. You on the other hand are saying Zimmer deserves little to none. To the point of you have him fired, when anyone can see he clearly isn't.

So, you're essentially saying that Bill Belicheck, Marvin Lewis, Gregg Williams, no one else in the NFL could successfully transition the Cowboys from a 4-3 to a 3-4?

There's at least 1 other guy who can and that is apparently Mike Zimmer because he's done it. At Parcells' direction, yes. I'll grant you that. But the task was still his. A blueprint without someone to make it come to life is just paper.

No one is so brilliant that they can tell you something and with no effort on your own you make it succeed. Zimmer must be doing something right.

well said. a plan without execution has little, if any, tangible value.

while Parcells is most definitely the architect of the current Dallas defense, the foreman charged with seeing it to fruition is Zimmer. they didn't give MZ the headset to start a fashion trend.

efforts to minimize his impact on the defense are are so contrary to visual evidence and sheer common sense - they border on the ridiculous... and are obviously emotionally driven. :rolleyes:

[Kilyin]

Parcells should be getting the credit for our Defense since he is the one who is really running it. Parcells did not want Henson or Romo running our offense cuz they had no experience and did not wanna go through some years till they were good. He went with Bledsoe cuz Bledsoe has been around awhile and is a good proven QB.

The same for Zimmer. Zimmer sucked anyways. But Zimmer is a rookie with no experience in the 3-4. So like Parcells is not gonna let a rookie QB run this offense he aint gonna let some rookie to the 3-4 run our D.

I think BP let Zimmer have a chance at first but when he saw how totally lost he was that is when BP took over and that is why you see a much better D now.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! !!!!

:hammer:

Where art thou Dom Capers?

[WoodysGirl]

:hammer:

Where art thou Dom Capers?barely holding his head above the nasty bayou waters in Houston... :p:

[Mike 1967]

well said. a plan without execution has little, if any, tangible value.

while Parcells is most definitely the architect of the current Dallas defense, the foreman charged with seeing it to fruition is Zimmer. they didn't give MZ the headset to start a fashion trend.

efforts to minimize his impact on the defense are are so contrary to visual evidence and sheer common sense - they border on the ridiculous... and are obviously emotionally driven. :rolleyes:

AND...

efforts to maximize his impact on this defense are equally as contrary to visual evidence and sheer common sense - they border on the ridiculous....and are obviously emotionally driven :rolleyes:

If the current defense was a Cake, then PArcells is the Flour and Zimmer is the sugar. And the instructions for making the cake would call out for 20 parts flour and 3 parts sugar. The cake may not be as good without the sugar...but....without the flour all you have is a lump of sugar. :p:

[Mike 1967]

I didn't realize that starting this thread would cause such a reaction on this board... But I like it. My main reason for this thread was that I noticed that last year and earlier this year, Zimmer was getting 99% of the blame for the defenses deficiencies. Now that things seem to have been turned around, Big Bill seems to be getting all the credit. I belive that the truth is some where in the middle. I know it's Parcell's scheme but Zim has to do the game planning, watch the film and call the defensive signals as the game unfolds. There is no way in hell that Bill can Micro-manage all aspects of a game. There are too many things going on at game time. I'm not a expert but I believe a good head coach puts a team in the best position to win by surrounding himself with good coaches and players. Then he should watch over them, making sure
his scheme is being executed, but stay far away enough not to undermine their authority.

Personally I do not feel that Zimmer is to blame for the deficiencies of last years defense. He inherited the system and the players....I also suspect that he had a limited role in selecting personnel.

And for the same reasons, I do not necessarily give him a large amount of credit of the success that the defense had in previous years. That success could have simply been an hold over from the Campo regime.

If Zimmer had been been a DC that was hired in separate from the Campo regime...and if he had brought his very own blue brint to the Defense ... then I would lay more blame or credit at his feet.

But at the end of the day...I can't say that it was Zimmers fault. All I can say is that we needed a change in the defense.

But If you are saying that this years success is in the middle between Parcells and Zimmer...then I would stongly disagree.

I would put it more at 80% Parcells and 20% Zimmer. And..that would be a very generous percentage to give Zimmer.

[Trip]

Now we go back to your S.O.P. analogy.

A department can't have success without proper procedures in place.

A department also can't have success without enforcement of those procedures.

The procedures are nothing without the implemenatation and enforcement, the enforcement is nothing without the procedures. They are both necessary for success.

Who's to say one is 80% and one is 20%? You need both.

There are other defensive coordinators that Dallas could have success with. There are other defensive-minded head coaches that Dallas could have success with. Right now, we have Parcells and Zimmer, and it's working.

[Compacity]

I think that Mike Zimmer is a good Defensive Cordinator, he just got to learn a new system, which Zimmer is use to the 4-3 and he converting over to the 3-4...

[Mike 1967]

Now we go back to your S.O.P. analogy.

A department can't have success without proper procedures in place.

A department also can't have success without enforcement of those procedures.

The procedures are nothing without the implemenatation and enforcement, the enforcement is nothing without the procedures. They are both necessary for success.

Who's to say one is 80% and one is 20%? You need both.

There are other defensive coordinators that Dallas could have success with. There are other defensive-minded head coaches that Dallas could have success with. Right now, we have Parcells and Zimmer, and it's working.

Yes...you need both. But I believe that one is harder to find than the other. And I also believe, that in this specific situation, one is more valueable than the other.

And this particular instance (Cowboys Defense) I would use the following logic to support my position.

(1) There are 2 primary reasons behind the success of this team: Change to the 3-4 and selection of the personnel.
(2) We would not be switching to the 3-4 if Parcells was not in the mix.
(3) We would still be switching to the 3-4 if Zimmer was not in the mix.

So without Parcells the changes do not occur. The same cannot be said for Zimmer. Unless one would argue that the team would go forward with a completely new defensive philosophy without having a HC or DC that had a solid history in that scheme.

[Mike 1967]

I think that Mike Zimmer is a good Defensive Cordinator, he just got to learn a new system, which Zimmer is use to the 4-3 and he converting over to the 3-4...

Agreed

And..Zimmer will have a very unique resume in that he will be a DC that has a record of success with both the 3-4...and the 4-3.

I believe that this experience could possibly make him a very formidable DC and/or HC in the future.

[Compacity]

Agreed

And..Zimmer will have a very unique resume in that he will be a DC that has a record of success with both the 3-4...and the 4-3.

I believe that this experience could possibly make him a very formidable DC and/or HC in the future.

nuff said...

[Doomsday]

His defense has given up 4 Touchdowns in the last 5 games!!! Man we could do so much better.

Yea I agree hes never going to grasp a 3-4 defense. :laugh1:

[Trip]

Yes...you need both. But I believe that one is harder to find than the other. And I also believe, that in this specific situation, one is more valueable than the other.

And this particular instance (Cowboys Defense) I would use the following logic to support my position.

(1) There are 2 primary reasons behind the success of this team: Change to the 3-4 and selection of the personnel.
(2) We would not be switching to the 3-4 if Parcells was not in the mix.
(3) We would still be switching to the 3-4 if Zimmer was not in the mix.

So without Parcells the changes do not occur. The same cannot be said for Zimmer. Unless one would argue that the team would go forward with a completely new defensive philosophy without having a HC or DC that had a solid history in that scheme.

Switching to the 3-4 is not the primary reason for the success of this defense.

[Trip]

Agreed

And..Zimmer will have a very unique resume in that he will be a DC that has a record of success with both the 3-4...and the 4-3.

I believe that this experience could possibly make him a very formidable DC and/or HC in the future.

He's already a very formidable DC. You thinks he's just fetching water and reminding people they need to listen to Parcells?

[Trip]

Your solution with your hard headed burro is simple.

Simply tie Pedro up and stop feeding him. Offer him carrots from your hand several times a day.

Eventually Pedro's hunger will overshadow his fear from the memory of the bad carrots.

Once he starts taking carrots from your hand again, make sure and feed him several times over a couple of days before you return him back to his regular feeding regimen.

But burro's can be very hard headed.

That burro believes you tried to cause him pain, even though he's not thinking logically, he blames you.

When you tie up the burro and begin to starve him, he will just believe this is another of your pain-causing tactics.

The burro will hold out as long as he possibly can, until no other solution can be found, then the burro will finally eat your carrots.

And in the end, the burro will believe it is you that have changed.

The hard-headed burro won't be wrong.

[Mike 1967]

You thinks he's just fetching water and reminding people they need to listen to Parcells?

......Nope... I don't

[Mike 1967]

But burro's can be very hard headed.

That burro believes you tried to cause him pain, even though he's not thinking logically, he blames you.

When you tie up the burro and begin to starve him, he will just believe this is another of your pain-causing tactics.

The burro will hold out as long as he possibly can, until no other solution can be found, then the burro will finally eat your carrots.

And in the end, the burro will believe it is you that have changed.

The hard-headed burro won't be wrong.

Burro's are smarter then I realized.

[Mike 1967]

Switching to the 3-4 is not the primary reason for the success of this defense.

I listed two primary reasons. Personnel selection and the 3-4. I did not go into the personnel selection.

but..same logic applies. We would have selected the same folks if Zimmer was not here. We would not have selected the same folks if Parcells was not here.

In your opinion...what is the primary reason for the success of the defense besides the scheme overhaul and the personnel selection ?

[Mike 1967]

Yea I agree hes never going to grasp a 3-4 defense. :laugh1:

That would be stupid. So would anyone who made that statement.

Fortunately for Zimmer he agreed to learn a new system....or he would not be here.

[Seven]

Parcells should be getting the credit for our Defense since he is the one who is really running it. Parcells did not want Henson or Romo running our offense cuz they had no experience and did not wanna go through some years till they were good. He went with Bledsoe cuz Bledsoe has been around awhile and is a good proven QB.

The same for Zimmer. Zimmer sucked anyways. But Zimmer is a rookie with no experience in the 3-4. So like Parcells is not gonna let a rookie QB run this offense he aint gonna let some rookie to the 3-4 run our D.

I think BP let Zimmer have a chance at first but when he saw how totally lost he was that is when BP took over and that is why you see a much better D now.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! !!!!


When I watch the games I see Parcells and Peyton not ten feet apart hemmin' and hawin' over the offensive plays. When I watch the games I see Zimmer standing alone, calling the defensive plays. Not once have I seen Parcells on the sidelines hemmin' an hawin' with Zimmer cause he feels he isn't doing his job. This I see with my own eyes. Concrete evidence. It's not something in my fantasy mind that allows me to take comfort, in yet another false avenue, as to save face on being wrong about Zimmer. BP calling the defense was too easy to latch on to, even for you. I don't remember any poster asking you to shut it up but rather, back it up. If you cannot, then by all means please stop torturing us with your drivel which is driven by hatred and with very little knowledge.

[ConcordCowboy]

But burro's can be very hard headed.

That burro believes you tried to cause him pain, even though he's not thinking logically, he blames you.

When you tie up the burro and begin to starve him, he will just believe this is another of your pain-causing tactics.

The burro will hold out as long as he possibly can, until no other solution can be found, then the burro will finally eat your carrots.

And in the end, the burro will believe it is you that have changed.

The hard-headed burro won't be wrong.

:lmao2:

Yeah that was a real brilliant plan....Starve the Burro :rolleyes:

[Mike 1967]

:lmao2:

Yeah that was a real brilliant plan....Starve the Burro :rolleyes:

Thanks !

But I cannot take credit

It is referred to as classical conditioning.

One of the pioneers in that science was Ivan Pavlov

"Ivan Pavlov's description on how animals (and humans) can be trained to respond in a certain way to a particular stimulus, has drawn a tremendous amount of interest ever since he first presented his findings. His work paved the way for a new and objective method of studying animal and human behavior."

[ConcordCowboy]

Thanks !

But I cannot take credit

It is referred to as classical conditioning.

One of the pioneers in that science was Ivan Pavlov

"Ivan Pavlov's description on how animals (and humans) can be trained to respond in a certain way to a particular stimulus, has drawn a tremendous amount of interest ever since he first presented his findings. His work paved the way for a new and objective method of studying animal and human behavior."

It wouldn't work for the Burro....As he said the Burro would still think he's right!

I don't believe in classic conditioning for feeding a animal ( or Humans ) if they don't want to eat something...Feed them something else!

Give the Burro a apple...he dosen't want this guys carrots anymore...the Burro can make up his mind what he wants to eat...You don't have to starve him.

Let me guess you'd starve your kids to get them to eat something they didn't want? :D

[Mike 1967]

It wouldn't work for the Burro....As he said the Burro would still think he's right!

I don't believe in classic conditioning for feeding a animal ( or Humans ) if they don't want to eat something...Feed them something else!

Give the Burro a apple...he dosen't want this guys carrots anymore...the Burro can make up his mind what he wants to eat...You don't have to starve him.

Let me guess you'd starve your kids to get them to eat something they didn't want? :D


Your missing the point.

It's not that the Burro does not like carrots. It's that the Burro has been conditioned not to eat carrots from a certain persons hand.

The reason that Burro will not eat from that persons hand is because he has been conditioned (due to a bad experience) not to eat from the hand. So it is necessary to re-condition the Burro if you wish for him to eat from your hand.

In respect to your question regarding kids

First - There is a huge difference between a human child and an animal. I don't eat my kids....but I had a nice cow last night.

Secondly - Kids are conditioned all the time. It's called discipline. (AKA spanking, grounding, time out.) Punishment in and of itself is conditioning.

If my child continues to run out into the street...or to stick his her hand into a power socket...then as a parent it is my responsibility to "condition them" not to do this.

[Mike 1967]

It wouldn't work for the Burro....As he said the Burro would still think he's right!

I don't believe in classic conditioning for feeding a animal ( or Humans ) if they don't want to eat something...Feed them something else!

Give the Burro a apple...he dosen't want this guys carrots anymore...the Burro can make up his mind what he wants to eat...You don't have to starve him.

Let me guess you'd starve your kids to get them to eat something they didn't want? :D

Secondly, the issue I was providing advice on had nothing to do with whether the Burro thought he/she was right. It had only to do with getting the Burro to eat from your hand.

They have a name for that too...it's called reverse psychology.

Thanks for playing. You are making an otherwise boring day very delightful.

[Trip]

Secondly, the issue I was providing advice on had nothing to do with whether the Burro thought he/she was right. It had only to do with getting the Burro to eat from your hand.

They have a name for that too...it's called reverse psychology.

Thanks for playing. You are making an otherwise boring day very delightful.

Well in my story, you're the stubborn burro. And it appears to me you're trying every way possible to justify a view point that you had months ago (by your own admission), instead of just eating the carrots.

[ConcordCowboy]

Secondly, the issue I was providing advice on had nothing to do with whether the Burro thought he/she was right. It had only to do with getting the Burro to eat from your hand.

They have a name for that too...it's called reverse psychology.

Thanks for playing. You are making an otherwise boring day very delightful.

Like I said you don't starve something to get it to eat something it dosen't want to eat..Either from his hand or from a bowl.

I don't care what you want to call it it's wrong.

[ConcordCowboy]

Well in my story, you're the stubborn burro. And it appears to me you're trying every way possible to justify a view point that you had months ago (by your own admission), instead of just eating the carrots.

From what I've read on this thread he would argue with God. :D

[Trip]

But I agree, it has made the day go by quick.

[Mike 1967]

Well in my story, you're the stubborn burro. And it appears to me you're trying every way possible to justify a view point that you had months ago (by your own admission), instead of just eating the carrots.

I like carrots.

and the thoughts I shared on the Burro had nothing to do with the football topic at hand. I was simply telling you how to get the Burro to eat the carrots...because I thought it was an interesting story.

[Mike 1967]

Like I said you don't starve something to get it to eat something it dosen't want to eat..Either from his hand or from a bowl.

I don't care what you want to call it it's wrong.

I agree...you don't starve something to get it to eat something it would not eat. It's not that I call that right....it's simply that you are setting up a straw man.

The burro won't starve...he will get hungry....then he will eat from your hand and see that there is no danger in eating from your hand. I never said that the Burro would starve.

You really need to read the post and understand it before start lambasting it.

Others would say that it is not right for a human to own a burro....so at the end of the day I suppose it really depends on the personal perspective. But if I want to condition my burro to eat from my hand....and you don't like it...that's your problem :D And there is nothing wrong with it. ;)

[Mike 1967]

From what I've read on this thread he would argue with God. :D

Nope...

That would be akin to trying to drive my head through 100 ft of concrete

[ConcordCowboy]

I agree...you don't starve something to get it to eat something it would not eat. It's not that I call that right....it's simply that you are setting up a straw man.

The burro won't starve...he will get hungry....then he will eat from your hand and see that there is no danger in eating from your hand. I never said that the Burro would starve.

You really need to read the post and understand it before start lambasting it.

Others would say that it is not right for a human to own a burro....so at the end of the day I suppose it really depends on the personal perspective. But if I want to condition my burro to eat from my hand....and you don't like it...that's your problem :D And there is nothing wrong with it. ;)

I understood the post...No the Burro wasn't going to starve to death....but you would starve it to get it to eat something it didn't want and that's where I disagree with you.

I'm glad I don't work for you and you're not my Dad.

You would take all the credit for my hard work without giving me any and you would starve me to get me to eat something I didn't want...Like Carrots! :D

J/K! :D

[Mike 1967]

Well in my story, you're the stubborn burro. And it appears to me you're trying every way possible to justify a view point that you had months ago (by your own admission), instead of just eating the carrots.

The basic premise of my viewpoint was correct.

If we overhauled the defense we would be better off....and we are.

The only thing I failed to consider was that you could completely overhaul a defensive scheme and keep the existing DC...even if he had no realtime experience with that scheme.

And the thing that some here seem to fail to grasp is that Parcells is the mastermind behind the recent success.

[Mike 1967]

I understood the post...No the Burro wasn't going to starve to death....but you would starve it to get it to eat something it didn't want and that's where I disagree with you.

I'm glad I don't work for you and you're not my Dad.

You would take all the credit for my hard work without giving me any and you would starve me to get me to eat something I didn't want...Like Carrots! :D

J/K! :D

No...I would not starve it to get it to eat something it did not want.

I would help it to overcome it's conditioning so that it could have the carrot that it desired.

My son would disagree with you. But then again, it is difficult to form a true perspective on a person off of a forum.