Bill Parcells:Cowboys should go all out to eliminate an NFC East opponent

[juck]

Bill should worry about the Dolphins now.BP is a money hungry hypocrite.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Not sure, but we still tanked towards the end of the season.

I am still PO'ed that we were not able to exploit a Seattle team riddled with injuries, especially the Secondary.

You know, the Secondary that featured a guy that was a Tour Guide a week or two before, as well as a guy that was a Loan Officer.

Yep. BP's approach led to a tight game(play not to lose when you are the better team) and a botched snap that should never have happened.

 

[Dodger12]

Bill Parcells never went "all out" in his 4 years here. He always played not to lose. Hypocrite.

Maybe the worst hypocrites are some people here. He knew his team far better than us hacks and if his philosophy was to keep it close in the 4th quarter to give us a chance to win, then that's what he had to do with QC or Hutch ot Vinny. Now, if that's not "going all out" to some people, then maybe you're the ones that are blind. The guy played pre-season games to win for goodness sake and to accuse him of never going "all out" in four years is just a silly accusation.

And how many people here crucified him for not playing Henson when the season was lost? How many people criticized him for bringing Vinny back in the 2nd half of the Chicago game and benching Henson because he thought it was our best chance at winning? When he played to win it wasn't enough. Now he's accused of never going all out. Yeah, we do have some hypocties, but it's not Parcells.......

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Yep. BP's approach led to a tight game(play not to lose when you are the better team) and a botched snap that should never have happened.

Well, I don't blame him for the botched snap.

I just hated some of his game plans.

Seemed like every other week, we would hear how a team's linebacking or secondary core was depleted and how they were susceptible to A or B and we would do the opposite of that.

 

[Dodger12]

Yep. BP's approach led to a tight game(play not to lose when you are the better team) and a botched snap that should never have happened.

Give me a break. We threw the ball on third and long near the goal line in the final minute of a playoff game with a young QB rather than running the ball and taking what should have been a gimmie FG. That would have been playing it safe. We went for the TD and if not for an over turned spot that was a bogus call based on the inconclusive camera angles, we probably punch it in for a TD. Glenn fumbled the ball for a safety on a fluke play when we have a 7 point lead with minutes or so to play. You can blame allot of things on the loss but that game was ours to win and it had very little to do with our "approach."

 

[AbeBeta]

Yeah criticized the gameplan. The real issue was two crazy fluke plays and a defense that couldn't stop a mediocre TE. That's not gameplan.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Give me a break. We threw the ball on third and long near the goal line in the final minute of a playoff game with a young QB rather than running the ball and taking what should have been a gimmie FG. That would have been playing it safe. We went for the TD and if not for an over turned spot that was a bogus call based on the inconclusive camera angles, we probably punch it in for a TD. Glenn fumbled the ball for a safety on a fluke play when we have a 7 point lead with minutes or so to play. You can blame allot of things on the loss but that game was ours to win and it had very little to do with our "approach."

No. No breaks. :

We should have beaten the Seahawks. Decidely.

 

[kojak]

Actually I think he played a little more open last year.

Only because he had no faith in the kicking game. When we released Vandershank and signed Grammatica, I felt like he went back to the play not to lose approach.

 

[Angus]

If we can't beat the Skins in the playoffs then we don't deserve to play in the Super Bowl. If you can't beat Todd Collins/Jason Campbell how are you going to beat Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

It's not a matter of "can't." It's a matter of "doesn't." Dallas showed that it could beat the Eagles, but a couple of weeks ago it didn't.

A team that gets too full of itself loses to inferior teams. I hope the coaches can insulate the team from fan over-exuberance.

 

[superpunk]

Give me a break. We threw the ball on third and long near the goal line in the final minute of a playoff game with a young QB rather than running the ball and taking what should have been a gimmie FG. That would have been playing it safe. We went for the TD and if not for an over turned spot that was a bogus call based on the inconclusive camera angles, we probably punch it in for a TD. Glenn fumbled the ball for a safety on a fluke play when we have a 7 point lead with minutes or so to play. You can blame allot of things on the loss but that game was ours to win and it had very little to do with our "approach."

Yeah criticized the gameplan. The real issue was two crazy fluke plays and a defense that couldn't stop a mediocre TE. That's not gameplan.

Brilliant posts.

Seattle also played alot of deep umbrella coverage, and Tony wouldn't cut the ball loose. Other teams pay their coaches, too. Seattle was clearly taking away the deep ball at all costs. That screen to Glenn should've been a TD...

 

[Dodger12]

No. No breaks. :

We should have beaten the Seahawks. Decidely.

You're right, we should have. But the botched snap, the Glenn fumble and the over turned spot all in the 4th Q had little to do with the approach.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Brilliant posts.

Seattle also played alot of deep umbrella coverage, and Tony wouldn't cut the ball loose. Other teams pay their coaches, too. Seattle was clearly taking away the deep ball at all costs. That screen to Glenn should've been a TD...

Not to bring up Roy Williams, but we did have a shot to get the ball back late in the game with very good field position. Yet someone missed a third down tackle in the backfield that sealed our fate.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

You're right, we should have. But the botched snap, the Glenn fumble and the over turned spot all in the 4th Q had little to do with the approach.

I do believe all three things you mentioned were very late in the game. The poor gameplan "approach" was well established by then.

 

[bbgun]

Hmm. This implies that the Cowboys should fear seeing the Skins somewhere down the line, and should eliminate them while they still have the chance. No sale.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Bill Parcells never went "all out" in his 4 years here. He always played not to lose. Hypocrite.

Hahahaha. Nice point, and oh so true.

 

[Chuck 54]

I think playing the giants or the Commanders a 3rd time is no big deal...it may even be an advantage. You already know those teams inside and out...there's very little they can show you that will be a big surprise, and if you are clearly the dominant team, which we are, then I think playing a team you've beaten twice is easier than playing a team that you've lost to twice.

Such a game will be much tougher for the Commanders or giants than for the Cowboys.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Hmm. This implies that the Cowboys should fear seeing the Skins somewhere down the line, and should eliminate them while they still have the chance. No sale.

I think it implies that if you play a team 3 times in a season, they are going to figure out your tendencies and take away your strenghts and magnify your weaknesses. Ever notice how division games are always tough no matter if the team is good or not? We beat the Skins by 5 points last time at home with a fairly healthy team. They didnt have Sean Taylor or Carlos Rogers.

We lost to a 5-8 Eagles team at home.

It has nothing to do with fear. At all. It has to do with the fact that divisonal games are ALWAYS tough because you know the opponent so well that you can usually gameplan for them very well since you know them so well. It isn't fear. It's about the more times you play a certain team, the more they will learn about you and the better chance they have a beating you. But of course I'm a chicken little for having this mindset so maybe I dont know...

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Maybe the worst hypocrites are some people here. He knew his team far better than us hacks and if his philosophy was to keep it close in the 4th quarter to give us a chance to win, then that's what he had to do with QC or Hutch ot Vinny. Now, if that's not "going all out" to some people, then maybe you're the ones that are blind. The guy played pre-season games to win for goodness sake and to accuse him of never going "all out" in four years is just a silly accusation.

And how many people here crucified him for not playing Henson when the season was lost? How many people criticized him for bringing Vinny back in the 2nd half of the Chicago game and benching Henson because he thought it was our best chance at winning? When he played to win it wasn't enough. Now he's accused of never going all out. Yeah, we do have some hypocties, but it's not Parcells.......

You need to post more.

 

[vjz]

When the Mavs played the Warriors in the final regular season game earlier this year, they rested key players even though they knew they had a chance to eliminate the troublesome Warriors.

The rest, as they say, is history: a historic collapse of the #1 seed against the #8 seed.

Only the really injured should sit & we should play to win.

 

[DCBoysfan]

I agree with Bill, I dont like playing teams three times Dallas can't help what other teams do but we can put the deadskins OUT our self.