2003- best coaching job but worst possible

[burmafrd]

outcome. BP did an incredible job getting that bunch of losers and misfits to the playoffs. BUT doing that cost us another year and probably in the end is the reason BP burnt out. Had we done as expected with Q, Hambone and the rest of those losers and gone 6-10 or whatever, there would have been a total remake in the offseason. Would we be in better shape now? That is the question- would we have gotten Ware, would Romo have been pushed in too soon, and so forth. But there is no doubt in my mind that we did lose a year in remaking the roster.

 

[Yeagermeister]

outcome. BP did an incredible job getting that bunch of losers and misfits to the playoffs. BUT doing that cost us another year and probably in the end is the reason BP burnt out. Had we done as expected with Q, Hambone and the rest of those losers and gone 6-10 or whatever, there would have been a total remake in the offseason. Would we be in better shape now? That is the question- would we have gotten Ware, would Romo have been pushed in too soon, and so forth. But there is no doubt in my mind that we did lose a year in remaking the roster.

In the long run 2003 did hurt us. It gave us a false sense of where the team was. BP should have started the rebuilding sooner.

 

[DipChit]

What would've been different (other than a higher draft pick the following year) and how can you do a "total remake" in one off season anyway?

Did any of *us* actually think the team was better than it really was based on that record?

 

[superpunk]

What would've been different (other than a higher draft pick the following year) and how can you do a "total remake" in one off season anyway?

Did any of *us* actually think the team was better than it really was based on that record?

Maybe we thought it, but if you go back - ask yourself how tough of a sell would it have been to the fans to say "We made the palyoffs, now we're blowing it all up." How tough a sell would that have been to Jerry Jones, who no doubt thought that all his brilliant moves worked, and he only needed brilliant coaching to unleash it?

 

[Yeagermeister]

What would've been different (other than a higher draft pick the following year) and how can you do a "total remake" in one off season anyway?

Did any of *us* actually think the team was better than it really was based on that record?

The team wouldn't have gotten better in one season but BP put too much faith in a bad qb and that helped set the team back a few years.

 

[DipChit]

Maybe we thought it, but if you go back - ask yourself how tough of a sell would it have been to the fans to say "We made the palyoffs, now we're blowing it all up." How tough a sell would that have been to Jerry Jones, who no doubt thought that all his brilliant moves worked, and he only needed brilliant coaching to unleash it?

My point is along the lines of I dont think most fans thought our team was as good as that record indicated so if we werent fooled by that why would Parcells have been?

And again, even if he and/or Jerry was fooled what would've/could've been done differently if they hadnt been? Go sign a bunch of prime time FA's to fill all the voids?

 

[WV Cowboy]

Did any of *us* actually think the team was better than it really was based on that record?

I am sorry to say that I did.

I actually thought that Campo was so bad and that Parcells was so good that a difference of 5 games was not out of the question.

I felt that Campo was so bad that I could have coached and won 7 games.

So when Parcells won 10 I was not surprised. I thought we would build and only get better from there.

Never did I dream that we would always be mediocre under Parcells.

 

[superpunk]

My point is along the lines of I dont think most fans thought our team was as good as that record indicated so if we werent fooled by that why would Parcells have been?

And again, even if he and/or Jerry was fooled what would've/could've been done differently if they hadnt been? Go sign a bunch of prime time FA's to fill all the voids?

Without remembering the 2003 offseason that well, I can't say. Maybe alot changes, maybe nothing at all. I feel a certain way about it. That doesn't mean it's right - just my perception. Maybe if we suck in 03 we realize that we're more than just a Dat Dude away from competing.

 

[burmafrd]

We would have almost certainly done more with QBs then we did. AND getting rid of the Hambones, Q's, Hutches, Vollers, etc. We basicaly lost a year- and that might have made all the difference in the world.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The only people that got a false sense of security based on the 2003 results were fans.

I am pretty sure the lack of success in 2004 had alot to do with Vinny Testeverde and Flozell getting injured.

Besides, most of the guys the original poster mentioned wasnt even on the team in 2004.

- Mike G.

 

[DipChit]

Well for myself, because of hindsight, I'll never wonder what might've been *after* the '03 season.. I'll always wonder what might've been had we done things differently going *into* the '03 season...

We know now that the stars aligned perfectly for us that year in regards to who we played and when we played them. Catching some good teams when they were playing poorly and playing a bunch of teams that had their own significant issues.

I didnt want Bill to waste a year, of what I thought would be a short tenure in the first place going, with QC and T-Ham. Signing Delhomme and Davis alone could've made a big difference. Afterall, if we could win 10 with the other 2 how could one not figure and extra victory or 2 wouldnt have been in order with those guys.

And even if we had signed those guys I'm not sure much else wouldv'e gone differently in regards to making the team better as a whole as we went forward. We still could've tucked a Romo away for the long run, still drafted young RB's cause we knew Davis was near the end, continued to draft for defense as well and so on.

 

[burmafrd]

Uh, the Hotel got injured in 2005, not 2004. We stuck with Q due to BP thinking he could do more with the guy based on what he did in 2003. Turns out he was wrong- due mostly to Q not being able to stay away from the hash.

 

[burmafrd]

The real problem early on was JJ not wanting to go after a real QB- stick with what we had- which turned out to be a whole lot of nothing besides Romo.
I think BP also got fooled a little- as did just about everyone else was.
A stinker of a year in 2003 would have meant real wholesale changes a year earlier.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Im getting years and injuries messed up.

Darren Woodson was on the sidelines, Julius Jones, Dan Campbell (1st game against Skins along with Pete Hunter), and Terrell Glenn got hurt.

It had nothing to do with Quincy Carter and Troy Hambrick, they were gone.

Again, the fans were the only group of people who got a false sense of security.

Parcells knew what he had or I should say didnt have.

- Mike G.

 

[burmafrd]

BP would have made the change to the 3-4 in 2004 instead of a year later. That is one big change right there.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The real problem early on was JJ not wanting to go after a real QB- stick with what we had- which turned out to be a whole lot of nothing besides Romo.
I think BP also got fooled a little- as did just about everyone else was.
A stinker of a year in 2003 would have meant real wholesale changes a year earlier.

What?

First all, the decision to go with Carter and Hutchinson was not a Jerry Jones decision, it was Parcells decision. Who do you suggest they should have went after? Terrell Owens is the only Parcells Era acquistion that has really been debated on as far as was it a Jerry or Parcells decision.

Rome wasnt built in a day. Parcells inherited one of the worst rosters probably in the NFL that year. It would have been asking alot to do a 50% overhaul of the offensive roster in year 2 and have us competitive.

You suggest Parcells got fooled by Quincy. There are some very well respected posters here who relayed a bit of inside information that Parcells was going to sack Quincy the next year regardless. Even if that was not going to be the case, I dont think anyone can aver that Quincy wouldnt have improved.

- Mike G.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

BP would have made the change to the 3-4 in 2004 instead of a year later. That is one big change right there.

What does Quincy Carter, Troy Hambrick, Kurt Vollers and all the other guys you mentioned have to do with the 3-4 Defense.

We didnt switch over because we lacked the personell.

Again, the years are kind of running together here, but I believe in 2005, we played a both a 4-3 and a 3-4. I think 2006 was really the only year where we ran it pretty much 100% of the time.

- Mike G.

 

[joseephuss]

They did try to make changes on defense. They got rid of weak links Ebenezer Ekuban, Mario Edwards and Willie Blade. Problem was they replaced those three guys with worse players. Add in the injury to Woodson and that is over a third of the defense that got worse, not better as eveyone hoped. Oh, and Newman got dinged and did not play up to his rookie level. That is 5 positions that were not as good as 2003.

After 2003 everyone said that if they could get better players at RDE, RCB and NT then maybe the team could take another step upwards. Bill and Jerry attempted to improve those 3 spots and missed, so I don't see how going to the playoffs in 2003 set the team back. I just see poor decisions and talent evaluation as being part of the problem for 2004.

The defense also tried to improve by incorporating Bradie James into the game more for Dexter Coakley who was losing a step. Changes were being implemented.

On offense they tried to improve the running back position with Julius Jones. Would have worked if he stayed healthy. He did not. They made a poor choice of his back up when they signed Eddie George. Too expensive and really wasn't worth a vet min. at the time. He was done. They didn't sit still. They tried to improve, but failed.

As far as QB. Who was available during that off season? No one except Vinny and he was no good.