Parcells - Romo

[rcaldw]

I offer an OPINION on Parcell's view of Tony Romo.

1. When some people were calling for Drew Henson, talking up Tony Romo was an easy thing to do. Didn't offer any fodder for "replace Bledsoe", only served to quiet down any talk of "play Henson."

2. To talk up Tony Romo this preseason was an easy thing to do, not only because Parcells genuinely likes him, but because it was going to ease any potential concerns when the inevitable happened and he was done with the Henson experiment. Remember, Parcells said that he felt it was important to have SOMETHING in the works in terms of a future at QB, he owed that to the franchise. (i.e., "Now see, I haven't left you with an empty cupboard, I've been working on this.")

3. In reality Parcells sees Tony Romo as a genuine backup QB, but not necessarily a full-time starter, and certainly not ready right now.

4. Drew Bledsoe will be his man until the Cowboys are out of playoff contention, if they ever are.

[Portland Fanatic]

I offer an OPINION on Parcell's view of Tony Romo.

1. When some people were calling for Drew Henson, talking up Tony Romo was an easy thing to do. Didn't offer any fodder for "replace Bledsoe", only served to quiet down any talk of "play Henson."

2. To talk up Tony Romo this preseason was an easy thing to do, not only because Parcells genuinely likes him, but because it was going to ease any potential concerns when the inevitable happened and he was done with the Henson experiment. Remember, Parcells said that he felt it was important to have SOMETHING in the works in terms of a future at QB, he owed that to the franchise. (i.e., "Now see, I haven't left you with an empty cupboard, I've been working on this.")

3. In reality Parcells sees Tony Romo as a genuine backup QB, but not necessarily a full-time starter, and certainly not ready right now.

4. Drew Bledsoe will be his man until the Cowboys are out of playoff contention, if they ever are.

If he's not ready now...he NEVER will be. He's been here for 3+ years...it's now or never.

[SultanOfSix]

I don't know about this. Remember, in preseason, there were whisperings from both Peter King and Mortenson that BP felt that Romo could actually start this year. The more this Bledsoe-Romo saga continues, and if Bledsoe continues his poor play in big games, the more it seems likely that these statements will be reality soon.

That doesn't bode well for the the notion that BP believes Romo is just a back-up QB.

[theogt]

I offer an OPINION on Parcell's view of Tony Romo.

1. When some people were calling for Drew Henson, talking up Tony Romo was an easy thing to do. Didn't offer any fodder for "replace Bledsoe", only served to quiet down any talk of "play Henson."

2. To talk up Tony Romo this preseason was an easy thing to do, not only because Parcells genuinely likes him, but because it was going to ease any potential concerns when the inevitable happened and he was done with the Henson experiment. Remember, Parcells said that he felt it was important to have SOMETHING in the works in terms of a future at QB, he owed that to the franchise. (i.e., "Now see, I haven't left you with an empty cupboard, I've been working on this.")

3. In reality Parcells sees Tony Romo as a genuine backup QB, but not necessarily a full-time starter, and certainly not ready right now.

4. Drew Bledsoe will be his man until the Cowboys are out of playoff contention, if they ever are.This may be true, but there's that little problem with the pre-season -- meaning that, despite the level of his opponents, he looked pretty darn good in both physical and mental aspects of the game.

[rcaldw]

I don't know about this. Remember, in preseason, there were whisperings from both Peter King and Mortenson that BP felt that Romo could actually start this year. The more this Bledsoe-Romo saga continues, the more it seems likely that these statements will be reality soon.

That doesn't bode well for the the notion that BP believes Romo is just a back-up QB.

I actually hope you are right Sultan, but my feeling is that if he really thought that Romo was "all that", this would have been the absolute time to make the switch. You have Bledsoe coming off a bad performance, you would have had Romo's first game at home against a very weak defense in the Texans, and his next game a home matchup against the Giants.

You couldn't ask for a better scenario IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE that he is THAT CLOSE to unseating Bledsoe. The only conclusion I'm left with is that Parcells doesn't really consider the two to be that close at the moment.

[Martice]

I offer an OPINION on Parcell's view of Tony Romo.

1. When some people were calling for Drew Henson, talking up Tony Romo was an easy thing to do. Didn't offer any fodder for "replace Bledsoe", only served to quiet down any talk of "play Henson."

2. To talk up Tony Romo this preseason was an easy thing to do, not only because Parcells genuinely likes him, but because it was going to ease any potential concerns when the inevitable happened and he was done with the Henson experiment. Remember, Parcells said that he felt it was important to have SOMETHING in the works in terms of a future at QB, he owed that to the franchise.

3. In reality Parcells sees Tony Romo as a genuine backup QB, but not necessarily a full-time starter, and certainly not ready right now.

4. Drew Bledsoe will be his man until the Cowboys are out of playoff contention, if they ever are.

Good analysis. However, I do see that Romo probably plays well enough to start but not overwhelmingly so at this point in his career. Then again, Drew falls into that category as well even after 14 years of experience.

Seriously speaking. Of course I don't think Romo is going to come in and blaze the NFL but I also believe he can't make moreof the same bone head decisions that Drew makes. Even with limited experience.

Good Post.

[Stautner]

I offer an OPINION on Parcell's view of Tony Romo.

1. When some people were calling for Drew Henson, talking up Tony Romo was an easy thing to do. Didn't offer any fodder for "replace Bledsoe", only served to quiet down any talk of "play Henson."

2. To talk up Tony Romo this preseason was an easy thing to do, not only because Parcells genuinely likes him, but because it was going to ease any potential concerns when the inevitable happened and he was done with the Henson experiment. Remember, Parcells said that he felt it was important to have SOMETHING in the works in terms of a future at QB, he owed that to the franchise. (i.e., "Now see, I haven't left you with an empty cupboard, I've been working on this.")

3. In reality Parcells sees Tony Romo as a genuine backup QB, but not necessarily a full-time starter, and certainly not ready right now.

4. Drew Bledsoe will be his man until the Cowboys are out of playoff contention, if they ever are.

This is an intersting theory, but pretty far fetched in my mind that Parcells would go to such great lengths to influence people to quit thinking about and promoting Henson.

Particualary this preseason - the vast majority of people were already off the Henson bandwagon anyway.

Besides, Parcells isn't particularly known for caring what "people" think or for coddling the fans and media.

[Portland Fanatic]

This may be true, but there's that little problem with the pre-season -- meaning that, despite the level of his opponents, he looked pretty darn good in both physical and mental aspects of the game.

I was at the Seattle game this pre-season and that's exactly what I was looking for...and Romo impressed me greatly. He was better then I expected...a pleasant surprise. This is the big reason I'm clamouring for Romo now...I wa impressed with what I saw in person. Played smart, made good decisions, moved side to side to avoid rush and buy time, and ran the ball when he had to.

With Romo we had 3 and 4 instead of 3 and 15 like we would have with Bledsoe...

I'm sorry to the Bledsoe faithful's, but we absolutly can NOT go anywhere in the playoffs with Drew...we can't. Our only chance is with Romo...really. I don't care how green he is...

[superpunk]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.

[theogt]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.These first four games are on par with the last 7 games of last season, actually.

[rcaldw]

This is an intersting theory, but a pretty far fetched in my mind that Parcells would go to such great lengths to influence people to quit thinking about and promoting Henson.

Particualary this preseason - the vast majority of people were already off the Henson bandwagon anyway.

Stautner, just to be clear on my opinion, if Parcells "used" Romo in this way, it would have only been during that brief time when the Dallas community was pressing pretty hard about why can't we see Henson.

I don't think he was doing that THIS PRESEASON. I DO think, however, that Parcells is sensitive to Jerry Jones' desire, to have SOME FUTURE in place at QB before his time here is done. Thus, talking up Tony gives hope to Jerry and the fanbase even while in his mind, Romo isn't that close to unseating Bledsoe.

[Portland Fanatic]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.

I completely disagree...this is exactly what we have in Bledsoe. He will put up great numbers against below .500 teams and kill us against teams over .500 or teams with a good pass rush. His history more then proves this over and over again.

[rcaldw]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.

Superpunk you just spoke to what I'm saying. Despite the rumors by Peter King and others, I just don't think that Parcells really believes that Romo is that close to Bledsoe right now in the ability to guide a team to victory consistently, and that is why Bledsoe is a fixture until this team is eliminated from the playoff picture.

[superpunk]

These first four games are on par with the last 7 games of last season, actually.

They're much worse. Considering the road cones we had at tackle last season, I don't think you can legitimately look anyone in the eye and say "Yes - those 7 games are an accurate test sample for Drew Bledsoe." The blocking is much better this year, and he's screwing up. He may very well have lost it. But I don't believe it. Lots of QBs have a few tough games. Ask Carson Palmer. Legitimately considered to be a top 3 QB in the league, he's thrown 4 INTs, lost 4 fumbles, and been sacked 5 more times than Bledsoe. Ask Matt Hasselbeck, who has the same INT total as Bledsoe in less attempts.

Maybe these QBs have completely lost it, a la Culpepper.

But I don't believe it yet.

[superpunk]

I completely disagree...this is exactly what we have in Bledsoe.

Well then, you are completely wrong.

Look at Bledsoe's career TO's per game, then look at games against Jax and Philly.

It's not even close to par for the course for Bledsoe.

[theogt]

They're much worse. Considering the road cones we had at tackle last season, I don't think you can legitimately look anyone in the eye and say "Yes - those 7 games are an accurate test sample for Drew Bledsoe." The blocking is much better this year, and he's screwing up. He may very well have lost it. But I don't believe it. Lots of QBs have a few tough games. Ask Carson Palmer. Legitimately considered to be a top 3 QB in the league, he's thrown 4 INTs, lost 4 fumbles, and been sacked 5 more times than Bledsoe. Ask Matt Hasselbeck, who has the same INT total as Bledsoe in less attempts.

Maybe these QBs have completely lost it, a la Culpepper.

But I don't believe it yet.So he's getting worse with better talent. Sounds like the product of being an over-the-hill QB to me.

[Martice]

Stautner, just to be clear on my opinion, if Parcells "used" Romo in this way, it would have only been during that brief time when the Dallas community was pressing pretty hard about why can't we see Henson.

I don't think he was doing that THIS PRESEASON. I DO think, however, that Parcells is sensitive to Jerry Jones' desire, to have SOME FUTURE in place at QB before his time here is done. Thus, talking up Tony gives hope to Jerry and the fanbase even while in his mind, Romo isn't that close to unseating Bledsoe.

Hmm... Damn it get's more interesting by the moment. What if this scenario were true. Romo is all smoke and mirrors and we are one Drew injury away from being led by J.P. Losman the second. Think about it....... NOT!!!

I know what I saw and this guy is solid at least. Then again I'm no QB coach either but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. With my wife.....:D

[superpunk]

Superpunk you just spoke to what I'm saying. Despite the rumors by Peter King and others, I just don't think that Parcells really believes that Romo is that close to Bledsoe right now in the ability to guide a team to victory consistently, and that is why Bledsoe is a fixture until this team is eliminated from the playoff picture.

Basically, I agree. What reason do we have to believe that Parcells would not play the best player? Do we have psychiatric reports confirming his masochism? Are we regretting all these talented players we've let go, Pete Hunter?

But I do not think it will take playoff elimination to replace Bledsoe. Honestly, I think one more stinker like we've seen, and Bledsoe is out. I do believe the rope is short. Parcells doesn't believe what he's seeing on gameday either. Once it's confirmed, he'll yank him very quickly.

[RCowboyFan]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.


No, he is that bad. All off season some of us have been singing the same song, being labeled Bledsoe haters etc.

On the road, when pressure is on, Bledsoe always has been bad. At home, it seems to be a different story. Watch Houston game, he will be good and most likely against Gaints too.

Then against Panthers I expect another meltdown. I hope I am wrong, and he totally plays well here on out. I am not saying he can't throw a bad pass here and there, but what I am saying is, he shouldn't throw back breaking type of ints or fumbles.

[CaptainAmerica]

Stautner, just to be clear on my opinion, if Parcells "used" Romo in this way, it would have only been during that brief time when the Dallas community was pressing pretty hard about why can't we see Henson.

I don't think he was doing that THIS PRESEASON. I DO think, however, that Parcells is sensitive to Jerry Jones' desire, to have SOME FUTURE in place at QB before his time here is done. Thus, talking up Tony gives hope to Jerry and the fanbase even while in his mind, Romo isn't that close to unseating Bledsoe.

Despite what some fans think Peter King and Mortenson do talk to Parcells and King, especially does have a pretty close relationship with him, dating back to King's days at Newsday when Parcells was with the G-men.

When King began to openly write about Romo possibly taking over the reigns at some point early in the season, if Bledsoe struggled in the first few games, he didn't come up with that on his own and Parcells didn't whisper it to him to appease Jerry or take attention away from Drew Henson.

I want a change, but I recognize that it's not that easy for a Head Coach. Replacing Bledsoe has major ramifications for every player on the roster of a team that was expected to contend. As a Head Coach you have to be cautious about such a change. I don't like it, but I do understand it.

Bledsoe better pick up his game and hope the OL figures out how to pick up a blitz or Romo-time could be closer than anyone believes.

[superpunk]

So he's getting worse with better talent. Sounds like the product of being an over-the-hill QB to me.

That's definitely possible.

I'm not buying it, yet. Bledsoe had the same excellent preseason that Romo did.

[Portland Fanatic]

Well then, you are completely wrong.

Look at Bledsoe's career TO's per game, then look at games against Jax and Philly.

It's not even close to par for the course for Bledsoe.

Maybe not at the ratio of 4 turnovers per game, but he does not play well at all against good defenses or in the playoffs.

[superpunk]

No, he is that bad. All off season some of us have been singing the same song, being labeled Bledsoe haters etc.

On the road, when pressure is on, Bledsoe always has been bad. At home, it seems to be a different story. Watch Houston game, he will be good and most likely against Gaints too.

Then against Panthers I expect another meltdown. I hope I am wrong, and he totally plays well here on out. I am not saying he can't throw a bad pass here and there, but what I am saying is, he shouldn't throw back breaking type of ints or fumbles.


No. He is not THAT bad. He is not 5 TOs per game bad.

I guess you must not have watched our road games against SD, Philly, or Carolina last year, where he carried the team, led us back, and tossed a game-winner to Terry.

[CaptainAmerica]

No, he is that bad. All off season some of us have been singing the same song, being labeled Bledsoe haters etc.

On the road, when pressure is on, Bledsoe always has been bad. At home, it seems to be a different story. Watch Houston game, he will be good and most likely against Gaints too.

Then against Panthers I expect another meltdown. I hope I am wrong, and he totally plays well here on out. I am not saying he can't throw a bad pass here and there, but what I am saying is, he shouldn't throw back breaking type of ints or fumbles.


Good point about his home performances compared to the road. Especially NFC EAST road games. There is a difference in his performance, but in his defense the whole team seems to come unglued on the road in a hostile environment, as in the Skins game last year.

[rcaldw]

Despite what some fans think Peter King and Mortenson do talk to Parcells and King, especially does have a pretty close relationship with him, dating back to King's days at Newsday when Parcells was with the G-men.

When King began to openly write about Romo possibly taking over the reigns at some point early in the season, if Bledsoe struggled in the first few games, he didn't come up with that on his own and Parcells didn't whisper it to him to appease Jerry or take attention away from Drew Henson.

I want a change, but I recognize that it's not that easy for a Head Coach. Replacing Bledsoe has major ramifications for every player on the roster of a team that was expected to contend. As a Head Coach you have to be cautious about such a change. I don't like it, but I do understand it.

Bledsoe better pick up his game and hope the OL figures out how to pick up a blitz or Romo-time could be closer than anyone believes.

You may be right Captain. What I'm looking for is the reason why you talk up Tony Romo, "leak" the idea to your buddies (King and Mortenson) that a change could be coming soon, have the perfect scenario for enacting the change, and then not do it.

You may be right, though, that it is simply a matter of thinking twice before you pull the trigger.

[5Stars]

Then again I'm no QB coach either but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. With my wife.....:D


That's funny...I did the same thing the night before! :eek:

[Stautner]

Stautner, just to be clear on my opinion, if Parcells "used" Romo in this way, it would have only been during that brief time when the Dallas community was pressing pretty hard about why can't we see Henson.

I don't think he was doing that THIS PRESEASON. I DO think, however, that Parcells is sensitive to Jerry Jones' desire, to have SOME FUTURE in place at QB before his time here is done. Thus, talking up Tony gives hope to Jerry and the fanbase even while in his mind, Romo isn't that close to unseating Bledsoe.

I can certainly see that Parcells would want to appease Jerry's desire to have a QB of the future in place, but it just doesn't make sense that Romo would be the guy he would do that with.

At least not unless he truly believed in him.

Why would Parcells choose to force feed Jerry and the fans with a guy that came out of college with low expectations (undrafted - small school) and whom Jerry has barely been able to hide his dislike for when a multitude of other guys he could have dug up over the years would have been a much easier sell?

Besides, Romo's status isn't just built on promotion by Parcells - the fact is that Romo has performed well in 8 consecutive preseason games. Not all GREAT games, but not a dud in the bunch. That suggests strongly that Romo can be the real deal - why should we question that until it is proved wrong?

[Martice]

That's funny...I did the same thing the night before! :eek:


:lmao2:

[RCowboyFan]

Good point about his home performances compared to the road. Especially NFC EAST road games. There is a difference in his performance, but in his defense the whole team seems to come unglued on the road in a hostile environment, as in the Skins game last year.


I think lot of that had to do with early miscues by Bledsoe. Last year against Philly, on the MNF game, we were going to toe to toe with Philly, then Bledsoe throws a bad Int just before half and Philly scores, that till the end of the game, whole team, especially Offense played like Crap.
Same thing against Skins, he throws a int. early in the game, and seems like suddenly whole team crumbles. I just feel that or sense that, those things rattle Bledsoe and in turns it effects the rest of the team, offensive side anyway. This version of team seems to be more mature than last year, but we won't know till end of season.

[CaptainAmerica]

You may be right Captain. What I'm looking for is the reason why you talk up Tony Romo, "leak" the idea to your buddies (King and Mortenson) that a change could be coming soon, have the perfect scenario for enacting the change, and then not do it.

You may be right, though, that it is simply a matter of thinking twice before you pull the trigger.

I just think you have to give it time. We are only 4 weeks into the season and you are talking about the single biggest decision a Head Coach can make. To bench a guy like Bledsoe, a known commodity who has definite limitations, but also in his defense has some positive attributes, to go with a guy who has never taken a snap in the regular season.

What would make this much easier for Parcells would be a minor injury to Bledsoe that would give him a chance to see Romo in action. But that only happens once every 7 or 8 years or so with Bledose. He's a tough hombre, made out of barbed wire. :bang2:

[CaptainAmerica]

I think lot of that had to do with early miscues by Bledsoe. Last year against Philly, on the MNF game, we were going to toe to toe with Philly, then Bledsoe throws a bad Int just before half and Philly scores, that till the end of the game, whole team, especially Offense played like Crap.
Same thing against Skins, he throws a int. early in the game, and seems like suddenly whole team crumbles. I just feel that or sense that, those things rattle Bledsoe and in turns it effects the rest of the team, offensive side anyway. This version of team seems to be more mature than last year, but we won't know till end of season.

Agree but it's the Defense also. They acted like they never understood a QB could throw the ball to a TE (i.e.,Chris Cooley) in that game in Washington last year.

[RCowboyFan]

No. He is not THAT bad. He is not 5 TOs per game bad.

I guess you must not have watched our road games against SD, Philly, or Carolina last year, where he carried the team, led us back, and tossed a game-winner to Terry.

Against SD, I agree. Against Philly and Carolina, please...... Julius/ and lucky Ref call against Carolina, and against Philly, pretty much one throw and stupid throw by McNabb.

Sure he has made those throws in Carolina and Philly, but he was also throwing some bad throws at the same time. I guess some people want to see what they want to see. I am sure you will say the same about me, but, facts don't lie.

Three teams and the same results so far with Bledsoe. But its never his fault ... Oh yeah, like I said I am sure he will have good games against Houston and Giants to quiet the talks about Romo etc., but I am sure next three road games, I think he will have about 2 meltdown type of games.

Hey feed me crow, if he doesn't , and I will gladly eat it. Either way, at the end of the year, I think it will be the same Bledsoe we saw every year since 2001.

[Pine Needle]

Good analysis. However, I do see that Romo probably plays well enough to start but not overwhelmingly so at this point in his career. Then again, Drew falls into that category as well even after 14 years of experience.

Seriously speaking. Of course I don't think Romo is going to come in and blaze the NFL but I also believe he can't make moreof the same bone head decisions that Drew makes. Even with limited experience.

Good Post.

Bledsoe has an overall won/lost record of something like 44/56, and he is getting worse at the position of QB. He is 4th from the bottom in the NFL at his position. So we have a proven losing QB with decaying skills playing near the very bottom of the league after 14 years at his job, and Parcells can't figure out what to do.

[SultanOfSix]

Bledsoe has an overall won/lost record of something like 44/56, and he is getting worse at the position of QB. He is 4th from the bottom in the NFL at his position. So we have a proven losing QB with decaying skills playing near the very bottom of the league after 14 years at his job, and Parcells can't figure out what to do.

The problem is, Bledsoe has had his best years UNDER Parcells. So, that is the distinguishing factor that enables him to rationalize keeping him. And it is a viable rationalization for certain situations. But Bledsoe is starting to fail even in those situations.

[CrazyCowboy]

I agree, it looks like Bledsoe will lead this team someplace....not sure where?

[rcaldw]

I can certainly see that Parcells would want to appease Jerry's desire to have a QB of the future in place, but it just doesn't make sense that Romo would be the guy he would do that with.

At least not unless he truly believed in him.

Why would Parcells choose to force feed Jerry and the fans with a guy that came out of college with low expectations (undrafted - small school) and whom Jerry has barely been able to hide his dislike for when a multitude of other guys he could have dug up over the years would have been a much easier sell?

Besides, Romo's status isn't just built on promotion by Parcells - the fact is that Romo has performed well in 8 consecutive preseason games. Not all GREAT games, but not a dud in the bunch. That suggests strongly that Romo can be the real deal - why should we question that until it is proved wrong?

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

[sf49rh8r]

When Romo is the better option, he will start. Parcells has never shied away from making a change, with any player, no matter how much he likes him, or how entrenched as one of "Parcells Guys" that player is. If someone better is on the team, he will start.

At this point, Romo doesn't qualify. These terrible, terrible games are out of character for Bledsoe. He's not that bad - that we know of.

If he keeps it up, and proves that he is, that bad, Romo will get the nod. Right now, Bledsoe gives us the best chance to win.

Sorry SP but I have to disagree with you. I have friends that are both NE fans and Bills fans and they warned me of all of this when we acquired Drew. His inconsistency is legendary. These bonehead passes aren't anything new. He racks up big yards but he's always had a flair for the bonehead pass. We aren't seeing anything new. And it isn't going to change. I made excuses against Jacksonville for him. That he might have injured himself well this may have been the case again. On his run he looked dazed and confused after that hit. And played terrible from there on. If BP can't tell when he's hurt and out of it then we have a problem at the head coaching position. If he's not hurt then he is just killing us with his passes. Personally, I say put the kid in. Let him make his mistakes but at least look to the future. :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

[sf49rh8r]

That's funny...I did the same thing the night before! :eek:


With his wife?

[Stautner]

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I'm believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

Come on - you really expect anyone to believe Parcells has pushed Romo out of some ego trip to show he can outsmart everyone .......?

As for delighting in finding the "gem" that no one else saw - that"s Jerry Jones territory (ie. Quincy Carter).

I'm not saying Parcells doesn't think highly of his ability to find a gem (a better term might be "judging talent" rather than sounding like it's just a fluke to find one), but do you really think that Parcells is merely trying to prove something without any foundation for believing it?

Doesn't the fact that you admit that you see the potential in Romo disprove what you are saying - at least to some degree? After all the 8 consecutive strong preseason performances by Romo haven't just been a promotional gimmick by Parcells - they actually happened.

As for Aikman - he would have been an ideal Parcells QB. I don't at all think Parcells underestimates the value of a franchise QB - he just has a different definition. To him a franchise QB isn't one who puts up huge numbers, but is one who guides the ship, provides leadership, doesn't do things to undermine the offense, runs the offense with precision and as designed, makes the necessary plays - basically Phil Simms. Aikman was very much the same type of QB.

[rcaldw]

Come on - you really expect anyone to believe Parcells has pushed Romo out of some ego trip to show he can outsmart everyone .......?

As for delighting in finding the "gem" that no one else saw - that"s Jerry Jones territory (ie. Quincy Carter).

I'm not saying Parcells doesn't think highly of his ability to find a gem here and there (a better term might be "judging talent" rather than making it sound like a crap shoot), but do you really think that's all Parcells is merely trying to prove something without any foundation for believing it?

Doesn't the fact that you admit that you see the potential in Romo disprove what you are saying - at least to some degree? After allm the 8 consecutive strong preseason performances by Romo haven't just been a promotional gimmick by Parcells - they actually happened.

As for Aikman - he would have been an ideal Parcells QB. I don't at all think Parcells underestimates the value of a franchise QB - he just has a different definition. To him a franchise QB isn't one who puts up huge numbers, but is one who guides the ship, provides leadership, doesn't do things to undermine the offense, runs the offense with precision and as designed - basically Phil Simms. Aikman was very much the same type of QB.

Troy Aikman was much more talented than Phil Simms. And do I think that Parcells will take a guy with NO TALENT and try to make something of him just to prove a point? OF COURSE NOT.

What I am suggesting, and do believe, is that if you give Parcells a choice of two fairly equal guys, and one represents the conventional wisdom, and the other has the potential to make him look smarter than you, he will choose the underdog time after time. You would dispute that?

[sf49rh8r]

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

Me too....bottom line is Drew isn't getting the job done and we can't afford to fall too far behind. I hate to admit this but I have to agree with a scenario laid out be Saulsbury. Let the kid have his day against the Titans. Unless he totally stinks up the place we should be able to handle this team if the rest of the players step their games up. This preps him somewhat for the G-Men. I honestly think that he can't be any worse than what we've been seeing from Drew....

As a note...the intelligence level on this page is unbelievable. Adnausium and suffice....nice vocabulary. Great post:bow: :bow: :bow:

[superpunk]

Troy Aikman was much more talented than Phil Simms. And do I think that Parcells will take a guy with NO TALENT and try to make something of him just to prove a point? OF COURSE NOT.

What I am suggesting, and do believe, is that if you give Parcells a choice of two fairly equal guys, and one represents the conventional wisdom, and the other has the potential to make him look smarter than you, he will choose the underdog time after time. You would dispute that?

How would you explain him taking the strong, big-armed QB out of Washington with the first pick in the 1993 draft and starting him right away?

Was he bucking convention to make himself look smarter with that one?

I don't buy that he elaborately sets things up so he looks smart. It's obvious Romo is better than Henson was. I was a huge henson guy, and even I can admit that. The best players play - always.

[sf49rh8r]

Well, I cringe to give my honest opinion on this one. I'm still of the school of thought that Bill Parcells delights in the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he deals with players, the way he deals with the media, and even with the way he deals with the jobs he has taken and refused.

I'm not saying I blame him. If you can do it YOUR way, why not? But I really do think he delights in "finding the gem" that no one else "saw".

I also think that he vastly underestimates the value of a franchise QB. I know that is has been debated adnausium on this board before, so I'll spare the details, but suffice it to say, I'm not sure (despite his stated desire to have played for Parcells) how Troy Aikman would have ever done under Bill Parcells.

So, I think this would explain WHY FORCE A ROMO ON JERRY.

Having said that, I TOO HAVE SEEN INDICATIONS THAT ROMO MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THE JOB.

I still have my doubts. I believe that a guy making it from a division II school is definitely the EXCEPTION not the rule, but maybe Romo will be the exception.

I for one would like to find out.

Come on - you really expect anyone to believe Parcells has pushed Romo out of some ego trip to show he can outsmart everyone .......?

As for delighting in finding the "gem" that no one else saw - that"s Jerry Jones territory (ie. Quincy Carter).

I'm not saying Parcells doesn't think highly of his ability to find a gem (a better term might be "judging talent" rather than sounding like it's just a fluke to find one), but do you really think that Parcells is merely trying to prove something without any foundation for believing it?

Doesn't the fact that you admit that you see the potential in Romo disprove what you are saying - at least to some degree? After all the 8 consecutive strong preseason performances by Romo haven't just been a promotional gimmick by Parcells - they actually happened.

As for Aikman - he would have been an ideal Parcells QB. I don't at all think Parcells underestimates the value of a franchise QB - he just has a different definition. To him a franchise QB isn't one who puts up huge numbers, but is one who guides the ship, provides leadership, doesn't do things to undermine the offense, runs the offense with precision and as designed, makes the necessary plays - basically Phil Simms. Aikman was very much the same type of QB.


I agree for the most part but you ruined it by comparing Simms to Aikman. Simms couldn't hold Aikman's jock.

[Stautner]

Troy Aikman was much more talented than Phil Simms. And do I think that Parcells will take a guy with NO TALENT and try to make something of him just to prove a point? OF COURSE NOT.

What I am suggesting, and do believe, is that if you give Parcells a choice of two fairly equal guys, and one represents the conventional wisdom, and the other has the potential to make him look smarter than you, he will choose the underdog time after time. You would dispute that?

You're going to get pissed about the Aikman/Simms analogy?

Geez, get of your high horse. I didn't suggest they were exactly the same talent level - I said they were the same type of QB. That isn't a controversial statement. The statistics back it up and if you watched the two play it's obvious. Aikman WAS stronger and bigger than Simms - probably WAS somewhat more talented, but arm strength and size and basic talent weren't what made either great. If you think that you're mind is unable to comprehend what you see. The leadership and abilty to run the offense with precision were the strong points of both.

As for the two fairly equal guys situation - frankly i don't know. Maybe Parcells would favor the underdog. If so, what's your point - it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

We weren't talking about Parcells pushing Romo over an equal talent - we were talking about Parcells pushing A backup QB to appease Jerry Jones and the fans.

You injected an entirely different scenario as if it is somehow relevant.

[rcaldw]

How would you explain him taking the strong, big-armed QB out of Washington with the first pick in the 1993 draft and starting him right away?

Was he bucking convention to make himself look smarter with that one?

I don't buy that he elaborately sets things up so he looks smart. It's obvious Romo is better than Henson was. I was a huge henson guy, and even I can admit that. The best players play - always.

SP, I'm not saying that Parcells would NEVER take a franchise QB in a draft, or that he would NEVER go with conventional wisdom (see Demarcus Ware), I'm simply saying that he seems to place less emphasis on the QB position than most coaches I've paid attention to. And I am also saying that I have noticed, and I don't think I'm alone on this one, that he likes the "underdog" in his evaluation of players.

[superpunk]

SP, I'm not saying that Parcells would NEVER take a franchise QB in a draft, or that he would NEVER go with conventional wisdom (see Demarcus Ware), I'm simply saying that he seems to place less emphasis on the QB position than most coaches I've paid attention to. And I am also saying that I have noticed, and I don't think I'm alone on this one, that he likes the "underdog" in his evaluation of players.

I just think he likes the best players. Maybe players perceived as underdogs work harder - something highly valued by Parcells.

[rcaldw]

You're going to get pissed about the Aikman/Simms analogy?

Geez, get of your high horse. I didn't suggest they were exactly the same talent level - I said they were the same type of QB. That isn't a controversial statement. The statistics back it up and if you watched the two play it's obvious. Aikman WAS stronger and bigger than Simms - probably WAS somewhat more talented, but arm strength and size and basic talent weren't what made either great. If you think that you're mind is unable to comprehend what you see. The leadership and abilty to run the offense with precision were the strong points of both.

As for the two fairly equal guys situation - frankly i don't know. Maybe Parcells would favor the underdog. If so, what's your point - it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

We weren't talking about Parcells pushing Romo over an equal talent - we were talking about Parcells pushing A backup QB to appease Jerry Jones and the fans.

You injected an entirely different scenario as if it is somehow relevant.

Who said I was upset? I simply disagreed with the comparison of a guy who really was a bus driver (Simms) and a guy who was much more than that. (Aikman) And even then, Bill Parcells nearly drove Phil Simms out of his mind and made him battle it out with Scott Brunner and later Jeff Hostetler.

And honestly Staut, this last post of yours sounded much more like a high horse to me. All I did was disagree with you.

I'll be the very first to admit, you may be perfectly right. (I already acknowledged this with Sultan) It may be as simple as Bill Parcells really believing (rightly) that Tony Romo "has it", and his only hesitancy is "am I right, and is this the right time?"

I'm simply looking for "If you really believe that, and you already 'leaked' the idea to your buddies Peter King and Chris Mortenson, and you are looking for the right time this year to spring our future QB on us, why not now?"

Wouldn't this be the perfect time? The Texans... at home? With another home game right behind them?

[Stautner]

I agree for the most part but you ruined it by comparing Simms to Aikman. Simms couldn't hold Aikman's jock.

Is this thread the home of the brain dead?

I said they were the same TYPE of QB, not the same talent level.

Neither Aikman or Simms were the same TYPE QB as Favre or Elway or Marino ...... big numbers aren't what made them outstanding.

They both were outstanding because of leadership skills and an ability to run their offense with precision and efficiency - that was what set them apart and why they were successful (THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY SAME "TYPE"),

Although it's possible that you may actually think Aikman has numbers similar to the big production guys in NFL history and are just too blinded by homerism to see the truth.

[rcaldw]

I just think he likes the best players. Maybe players perceived as underdogs work harder - something highly valued by Parcells.

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

[Stautner]

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

Brunner was a mistake - plain and simple. But if you look at Simms first few years you can see that he didn't exactly light it up - and in fact played poorly. THAT's why Brunner got the chance, not because he was the underdog.

[superpunk]

So when he liked Scott Brunner better than Simms for a while, where did Brunner go after the Giants?

When he went with Ray Lucas as his backup QB in New York, where did Lucas thrive after that?

Listen, I'm not saying Parcells doesn't know how to evaluate talent. It is clear he does. But just like I would be batty to suggest he doesn't know talent, in my opinion, you are turning a blind eye not to recognize that Parcells makes decisions sometimes that seem to go against conventional wisdom and might be driven just a little by ego.

Ot by who was performing well at the time. Look how Simms was performing before Parcells put Brunner in. Look at how the Giants were performing. It was the right move, and his move to put Simms back in was even better, as they went on with great success. As for Ray Lucas, wasn't thata result of injury?

[rcaldw]

Ot by who was performing well at the time. Look how Simms was performing before Parcells put Brunner in. Look at how the Giants were performing. It was the right move, and his move to put Simms back in was even better, as they went on with great success. As for Ray Lucas, wasn't thata result of injury?

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time. And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ;)) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

[superpunk]

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time.
Or, it could have just pushed the right buttons on Simms, let him know he needed to step it up. We can't be sure. Ultimately - it was the right move, and it worked out well for everyone.

And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ;)) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

well, I don't think Lucas is a good example, then. Parcells went to him because Vinny was hurt. It's not like he picked him because he wanted to make him successful and stroke his ego. He had no choice.

MOXIE!!!!!!!!!!

[Stautner]

Well, I understand this perspective, but I guess I would argue that it wasn't the right move. Scott Brunner was NEVER going to take the Giants where Parcells wanted to go. It was a complete waste of time. And in terms of Ray Lucas, yes, it was because of injury and Lucas actually performed pretty decently that year, but Ray Lucas was never a legitimate, long term QB prospect, not even for the backup position, which is why he never was able to duplicate that one year's success. Parcells liked him, as you say, liked his effort and his "moxie" (forgive me ;)) but Lucas was never going to make it as a QB beyond what he did.

Of course Brunner was not the guy and wasn't going to take the Giants where they wanted to go ...... isn't it amazing how much smarter you are with the benefit of hindsight than Parcells was at the time?

[rcaldw]

Of course Brunner was not the guy and wasn't going to take the Giants where they wanted to go ...... isn't it amazing how much smarter you are with the benefit of hindsight than Parcells was at the time?

Nah, what's so amazing is how much smarter you are than me. :)

[Stautner]

Nah, what's so amazing is how much smarter you are than me. :)

Thanks - I'm so pleased you noticed.

Now if only I could figure out the difference between Cover 2 and Wishbone offense - I've been stuck on that one for years.

[rcaldw]

Thanks - I'm so pleased you noticed.

Now if only I could figure out the difference between Cover 2 and Wishbone offense - I've been stuck on that one for years.

Always happy to confirm a man's prejudices :)

[Jack-Reacher]

You guys kill me.

The let's bench Bledsoe talk cannot possibly be serious can it? I mean come on, surely you guys cannot want an unproven and for that matter an unknown QB at the helm? Don't come to me with his stellar preseason performances against vanilla defenses who did not game plan for him. The guy has not, repeat not, started a game when it counts. I agree that Bledsoe had a bad game, and has a propensity to have bad games, but who is to say that Romo will be any better? I understand that argument that he needs experience and that the team needs to know if he can be the guy, but are you really ready to throw in the towel on your season after 4 games? As soon as you start him you are telling the team we aren't going anywhere so let’s use this year as another rebuilding year. This team has some talent, and if they manage to find their stride can be scary good.

Drawing comparisons to Bledsoe's play against teams over .500 is a valid point, but of those teams over .500 how many have a good pash rush? When Bledsoe has time in the pocket does he not make some fantastic throws? We knew when they signed him that he wasn't mobile, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, so what we should be screaming for is better Offensive Line play. Flozell got worked against the eagles, the interior line looked bad at well. I don’t care who you are, if the defensive line is in your mug every throw you are going to make some bad throws.

I for one would rather have Bledsoe at the helm, with him you know exactly what you have, and regardless of what many of you guys think he is still a very good QB. I think that this team could be sitting at 4-0 and some of you would be complaining that we haven't put up 50 points every game.

Sheesh!!

Jon

By the way, SuperPunk, your sig rocks out loud!!

[Stautner]

Always happy to confirm a man's prejudices :)

That's a cute one - but you might try posts that are based in reality next time.

[superpunk]

Thanks MTRS...

The only thing I don't agree with in your post is that putting Romo in signifies the end of the road, or giving up. If we put him in now - at 2-2, when we could easily be better than that, without giving Bledsoe adequate time to prove that this guy we're seeing isn't the real Bledsoe, then you lose the team.

If he keeps it up, I think the team is confident enough in Romo that they would know the change is necessary, no matter how much they like Bledsoe - and they do. At that point, they're happy about the prospects Romo brings, and not resentful that Bledsoe wasn't given the proper shot.

Timing is everything.

[EPL0c0]

I actually hope you are right Sultan, but my feeling is that if he really thought that Romo was "all that", this would have been the absolute time to make the switch. You have Bledsoe coming off a bad performance, you would have had Romo's first game at home against a very weak defense in the Texans, and his next game a home matchup against the Giants.

You couldn't ask for a better scenario IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE that he is THAT CLOSE to unseating Bledsoe. The only conclusion I'm left with is that Parcells doesn't really consider the two to be that close at the moment.
If this were another coach, would they have pulled the trigger on Bledsoe already, or is Bill just that unwilling to do anything negative to Bledsoe?

CowboyL0c0

[Portland Fanatic]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

[Stautner]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

There is already an entire thread devoted to this topic.

[5Stars]

I have to wonder if BP has this deep fear that Bledsoe will retire if he makes the switch...leaving us with NO backup.

Gotta wonder...

If Bledsoe were to do something like that, then he would be remembered as not being a team player for the rest of his life...that would really be an embarassing moment if he did something like that...

[rcaldw]

That's a cute one - but you might try posts that are based in reality next time.

Nah, I think I'll post what I want if that is ok by you. :) And if you think all of the posts on this board represent reality, in fact, if you think all of YOUR posts represent reality, then.... well...what more can be said? I think I prefaced the first post of the thread with OPINION in all caps. As in, "not saying this is a FACT." As in, "this post is not based, necessarily, in reality."

Thus, all who respond to the post should know in advance that it is something thrown out for discussion. Which is what I enjoy about this discussion board. We have permission to do that.

We have a good mixture of breaking news, opinions, humor and debate. Makes it all fun. So, even though I think you got down to insult a little bit quickly, I still enjoyed our discussion and I hope we can be civil in our next one too.

[Stautner]

Nah, I think I'll post what I want if that is ok by you. :) And if you think all of the posts on this board represent reality, in fact, if you think all of YOUR posts represent reality, then.... well...what more can be said? I think I prefaced the first post of the thread with OPINION in all caps. As in, "not saying this is a FACT." As in, "this post is not based, necessarily, in reality."

Thus, all who respond to the post should know in advance that it is something thrown out for discussion. Which is what I enjoy about this discussion board. We have permission to do that.

We have a good mixture of breaking news, opinions, humor and debate. Makes it all fun. So, even though I think you got down to insult a little bit quickly, I still enjoyed our discussion and I hope we can be civil in our next one too.

Opinions can be based in reality you know .....

But you're right, it's an open forum, but I'm just too stubborn to not make a comment when someone treats hindsight knowledge as a basis for opinion about a past action ........

Come on, your opinion was that Parcells had an ulterior motive for playing Brunner, and your only basis for that opinion is that we know now, after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight, that Brunner wasn't a good QB - suggesting that Parcells must have known the same thing then that we all know now.

Are you really surprised that someone would call you on that?

[Jarv]

If Bledsoe were to do something like that, then he would be remembered as not being a team player for the rest of his life...that would really be an embarassing moment if he did something like that...

If he did that, he could kiss away any chance he may have had for a HOF consideration. I think that means a lot to guys who have played as long as he did.

[rcaldw]

Opinions can be based in reality you know .....

But you're right, it's an open forum, but I'm just too stubborn to not make a comment when someone treats hindsight knowledge as a basis for opinion about a past action ........

Come on, your opinion was that Parcells had an ulterior motive for playing Brunner, and your only basis for that opinion is that we know now, after the fact, with the benefit of hindsight, that Brunner wasn't a good QB - suggesting that Parcells must have known the same thing then that we all know now.

Are you really surprised that someone would call you on that?


Well, first the Brunner comment came in way after the original post. But, let me also say, that the only reason I offered Brunner up, along with Ray Lucas, is that at times Bill Parcells seems to go against conventional wisdom, and with a guy that isn't, shall we say, "pedigree"?

Simms comes to the Giants with a bit of a reputation, (1st round pick 79) Brunner has no reputation. (6th round pick 1980)

Look at Simms numbers in 1981
1981 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1981.htm) nyg (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg1981.htm) | 10 | 172 316 54.4 2031 6.4 11 9 | 19 42 0

Then he was out for 1982.

Look at Brunner's numbers in 1981-82

1981 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1981.htm) nyg (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg1981.htm) | 16 | 79 190 41.6 978 5.1 5 11 | 14 20 0 |
| 1982 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1982.htm) nyg (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg1982.htm) | 9 | 161 298 54.0 2017 6.8 10 9 | 19 27 1 |

There is nothing in those numbers that would have given Parcells the impression that Brunner was SUPERIOR to Simms.

This was HINDSIGHT for Bill Parcells in 1983.

So, he goes with Brunner. It so angered Simms that 6 weeks into the season he is asking for a trade, PUBLICLY. Parcells stays with Brunner.

The results?

Scott Brunner 1983
1983 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1983.htm) nyg (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg1983.htm) | 16 | 190 386 49.2 2516 6.5 9 22 | 26 64 0

And the rest is history.

So I guess my question is, what makes him lean toward a Brunner in that situation? And with that kind of performance in 1983, what makes you stay with him that long?

Now, I grant you, I DON'T KNOW what motivated Parcells, but I would simply say that my speculative observation isn't COMPLETELY outside the realm of reality.

PS. In 1982 Ray Perkins was the coach, 1983 was Parcell's first year. Simms was Perkins' QB.

[sf49rh8r]

Nah, what's so amazing is how much smarter you are than me. :)


He's smarter than everyone.....what was braindead was to mention Aikman and Simms in the same post. :bang2: :bang2:

[sf49rh8r]

He's smarter than everyone.....what was braindead was to mention Aikman and Simms in the same post. :bang2: :bang2:
And Elway and Marino weren't the same type of QB either.

[Ben_n_austin]

We should bring back the 'ol one look wonder ...





:laugh2:

[JMead]

I completely disagree...this is exactly what we have in Bledsoe. He will put up great numbers against below .500 teams and kill us against teams over .500 or teams with a good pass rush. His history more then proves this over and over again.

Maybe you should add " his teams history ". The QB isnt the one doing the blocking if you didnt notice.

Geez you cracktards are like broken records.