Bill Parcells on Mike & Mike... Cancelled

[superpunk]

You mean 'yes-men' give the honest truth about their bosses all the time?

What this has to do with Terrence Newman and Tony Romo - who are only a small part of the enormous group of players on our team, and HOF players who glow when talking about Parcells - I'll never know. I guess they're all yes-men who are just cow-towing to their boss....even though he isn't their boss anymore.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[khiladi]

What this has to do with Terrence Newman and Tony Romo - who are only a small part of the enormous group of players on our team, and HOF players who glow when talking about Parcells - I'll never know. I guess they're all yes-men who are just cow-towing to their boss....even though he isn't their boss anymore.

Makes perfect sense.

What does 'walking on egg shells' mean to you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

there seems to be alot of that in this thread

or the issue is at the end. i was going to respond to velevet with sentences to demonstrate the context of the overlapping meaning i was talking about but the realized it would be completely lost on you so decided not to waste my time.

 

[theebs]

What does 'walking on egg shells' mean to you?

that is the discipline. Everything about parcells was discipline and structure. It wasnt just on the field but off of it. So a person like that is going to be hard to handle if you are not a discipline oriented person.

that comment means that many people didnt feel the discipline was neccessary in all aspects of the organization and that it could be let up somewhere like his secretaries for example.

It was a big joke last year and all the media and the players got their shots in (a couple who are now gone and a couple more who have no future here) but it is who Jerry Jones hired and gave the power to.

Bill Parcells is the same way everywhere he goes. SOme like him some hate him but everyone INCLUDING jerry jones knew exactly who he was and what they were getting.

I remember dale hansen and newy scruggs crying on the radio in 04 when parcells was really cleaning house about how parcells is so evil because he was firing coaches and personnell people. One of the sorriest things I can remember.

Parcells ran the show his way, the only way he knows how. The people who were employees under that had to fall in line. I am sure some didnt like that disciplined and tense atmosphere and that is where that comment comes from. If you perceive it to be something negative that is your right. I take it like I am glad we can all lighten up around here. Which is easier to do when the hard work is done.

 

[khiladi]

lol

These are two different situations, but ironically they both have something in common, they are employees of an organization. The power of the organization was given by the owner to Bill Parcells. That is the first thing. The next thing is now that we have established parcells is in charge, parcells impements his way. The way of discipline. Discipline for parcells starts in the spring with weight training, conditioning and studying. The biggest parameters of that first step in the offseason are Attendance and effort.

Let us assume they are two different situations. That would mean they share a common factor and that is how Parcells deals with players... WHat this means is that it isn't allegedly what the player did, because Parcells treats them the same way. You claim that it is how TO acted that made him not endear to Parcells. Parcells simply wants to make examples out of players that don't fit his mold, irrespective of whether or not the player benefits his team. That is pure ego. ANy basic person who understands corporate philosophy will tell you that is BS. Further, Parcells isn't the coach anymore. He claimed he was no longer interested in coaching, and yet again, he is flatly contardicting his own words. Is he running trainign camp or is Tony SParano? At least TO is honest, unlike the liar that is Parcells. The guy is flat-out an ego maniac.

Further, no organization grants control to a person for the sake of that person satisfying his ego.

Unlike owens Jason Taylor has a somewhat slim ability to complain because he didnt sign a contract to play for parcells. Terrell Owens on the other hand signed on his own will a contract to play for bill parcells in 2006. The first step after signing that contract to play for parcells was weight training and conditioning of which the two biggest attributes are attendance and effort.

ALso, it was Jerry Jones that recruited TO to play for DC. We all know that Parcells didn't want him in the first place. That is why Parcells treated TO the way he did. TO signed a contract to play for the Dallas Cowboys. ANd considering TO is still here and racking up the statistics, I prefer TO. Further, every single organization no longer accepts the view that the employee cannot voice his opinions and influence how the organization is run. There are checks and balances that are created so that employees can express their views. This isn't dictatorship.

Owens flunked the first part and then only showed up for the one mandatory camp. So now he goes to LA by himself and greets the team at the airport. Thats wonderful. Then he gets injured almost immediately at camp. Hmm. lets see worked out on his own and not within the system he just signed up for and now is on the sideline riding a bike till he gets better and of course makes a mockery of that.

Owens showed up and had valid excuses.

Owens was showing parcells from day one that his discipline didnt apply to someone like himself. Gee I wonder why the relationship was unpleasent?

Did TO play with a torn tendon in his finger throughout the season? Did TO have a hurt hamstring that he couldn't practice on?

and again, the situations are different. Taylor didnt sign a large contract to play for Parcells, owens did. Rules are rules. THese guys when you break it down are employees and have to abide by the structure set in place. If they dont they frankly have no right to complain.

Jerry Jones came to TO... BP didn't come to TO...

 

[Hostile]

I disagree with this somewhat. I think Parcells wanted to be a GM all along. And when one opened with NY he went for it. Did not get it. So I think he took the Miami job for two reasons. One that is what he wanted all along. And Two to show New York what might have been.

I think he is a great coach and very very knowlegeable. I think he is a great game planner. And I know everyone will disagree. But I do think he has lost touch with the players today. And most players will not respond to his methods. Some will though.

Actually we don't disagree at all. That is exactly what I think and it is reflected by the fact that the Dolphins are his team, not Jeff Ireland's, and certainly not Tony Sparano's.

I think he wanted that autonomy here, didn't have it, so he didn't attack with the full energy he intended to and got burned out.

 

[Hostile]

His position on Parcells is the complete opposite of Romo and Newman's. It's not that hard to understand. Or maybe it is.

I don't know that his position is the "complete opposite" of theirs and don't think any of us do.

Have any of the players come out and said they prefer playing for him more than Wade? If so, I don't remember it.

That to me would be "complete opposite."

 

[theebs]

Let us assume they are two different situations. That would mean they share a common factor and that is how Parcells deals with players... WHat this means is that it isn't allegedly what the player did, because Parcells treats them the same way. You claim that it is how TO acted that made him not endear to Parcells. Parcells simply wants to make examples out of players that don't fit his mold, irrespective of whether or not the player benefits his team. That is pure ego.

Further, Parcells isn't the caoch anymore. He claimed he was no longer interested in coaching, and yet again, he is flatly contardicting his own words. He has TS as his mouth piece. At least TO is honest, unlike the liar that is Parcells.

The guy is flat-out an ego maniac.

Further, the organization grants control of a person for that persons ego.



No, TO signed a contract to play for the Dallas Cowboys. ALso, it was Jerry Jones that recruited TO to play for DC. We all know that Parcells didn't want him in the first place. That is why Parcells treated TO the way he did.

Further, every single organization no longer accepts the view that the employee cannot voice his opinions and influence how the organization is run. There are checks and balances that are created so that employees can express their views.




Owens showed up and had valid excuses accepted by Jerry Jones.



Did TO play with a torn tendon in his finger throughout the season? Did TO have a hurt hamstring that he couldn't play on?




Jerry Jones came to TO... BP didn't come to TO...

okay those are your thoughts. I wont get into it anymore with you. Our views are different but equal. I will say this though if that is how parcells views players across the board as you and owens are stating, how come teams dont revolt and refuse to follow his guidelines in large numbers. How come it is always the guys who dont want to be bothered by the structure that have problems?

From what owens has said and from what many here believe, no one in their right mind would play for him. He is old, unable to communicate with players, a bad talent evaluator a way over the top conservative coach and of course my personal favorite the game has passed him by.

of course none of that is true and we will see it again by the end of this season when miami is a much improved team and players start wanting to go there again. Just like they did in Dallas and with the jets when he was there.

 

[khiladi]

that is the discipline. Everything about parcells was discipline and structure. It wasnt just on the field but off of it. So a person like that is going to be hard to handle if you are not a discipline oriented person.

That is what a person like Stalin would say as well.

that comment means that many people didnt feel the discipline was neccessary in all aspects of the organization and that it could be let up somewhere like his secretaries for example.

No, that means that the situation was so tense that they were always worrying.

It was a big joke last year and all the media and the players got their shots in (a couple who are now gone and a couple more who have no future here) but it is who Jerry Jones hired and gave the power to.

So if it was a big joke, then what does that tell you? Especially in light of the fact the statements were made after Parcells was gone and the players were no longer accountable to him?

Bill Parcells is the same way everywhere he goes. SOme like him some hate him but everyone INCLUDING jerry jones knew exactly who he was and what they were getting.

There is a difference between having a general impression and actually experiencing something.

Parcells ran the show his way, the only way he knows how. The people who were employees under that had to fall in line. I am sure some didnt like that disciplined and tense atmosphere and that is where that comment comes from. If you perceive it to be something negative that is your right. I take it like I am glad we can all lighten up around here. Which is easier to do when the hard work is done.

EVen in the corporate world, those days are flat out gone. You know what they do to people like Parcells now in the corporate world?

 

[superpunk]

What does 'walking on egg shells' mean to you?

I have no idea. But you appear to think it has some sort of relevance.

I don't know that his position is the "complete opposite" of theirs and don't think any of us do.

Have any of the players come out and said they prefer playing for him more than Wade? If so, I don't remember it.

That to me would be "complete opposite."

I think you can take their comments on him after his exit and generate a pretty good idea, unless you're intent on splitting hairs. They seem to have a very different opinion of Parcells than does Terrell Owens. So do many players on our team. So does Phil Simms. The list goes on...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

or the issue is at the end. i was going to respond to velevet with sentences to demonstrate the context of the overlapping meaning i was talking about but the realized it would be completely lost on you so decided not to waste my time.

you have to use sentences to describe something so simple as someone being a better pick as opposed to a better player?

2 things w/ different meanings don't overlap, they can be used together, but using one does not automatically include the other, like saying better does not always infer something being more important

just 'fess up, and say, "hey, I was unclear w/ what I meant", instead of digging yourself in deeper

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What this has to do with Terrence Newman and Tony Romo - who are only a small part of the enormous group of players on our team, and HOF players who glow when talking about Parcells - I'll never know. I guess they're all yes-men who are just cow-towing to their boss....even though he isn't their boss anymore.

Makes perfect sense.

Even Romo has talked about how its more fun with Phillips around. Its great that Romo and Tnew can take the military style intimidation tactics that Parcells uses and respond to them.

The strict disciplinarian is an archtype of wartime. Parcells coaching heyday was in the 80s which was a whole generation before that. Most of the players during that time period had parents and coaches that were in the 20-40 range during the Vietnam war era. the archtype was much more prevalent and accepted as a teaching method.

Fast foward to the new millenium and the parents of the players are at the 20-40 range at the end of the Vietnam war era when anti war sentiment was at its peak or during a time where there was no war, no compulsory service and the like.

Most of the current players grew up in an environment where the harsh taskmaster wasn't an accepted archtype. You saw parents getting arrested for spanking there kids with Dr Spock saying be nice to your kids instead.

Saying Romo and Newman could deal with it and using that as a reason why everyone should be able to misses the forest for the sake of two trees.

Look at how vermeil, Dungy and Smith now perform. Look how Coughlin got his team to respond after changing his tactics. Heck look at how the Cowboys respond to Wade Phillips. its all there plain as day.

 

[khiladi]

okay those are your thoughts. I wont get into it anymore with you. Our views are different but equal. I will say this though if that is how parcells views players across the board as you and owens are stating, how come teams dont revolt and refuse to follow his guidelines in large numbers. How come it is always the guys who dont want to be bothered by the structure that have problems?

How many people in corproate structures go against their bosses? People have different natures and react differently. The Iraqis had problems with Saddam Hussein. The fact that they didn't revolt doesn't mean they didn't have a problem with the structure. Not everybody has 'revolt' in them.

From what owens has said and from what many here believe, no one in their right mind would play for him. He is old, unable to communicate with players, a bad talent evaluator a way over the top conservative coach and of course my personal favorite the game has passed him by.

Or it could just mean that the other factors outweigh the option of actually revolting...

of course none of that is true and we will see it again by the end of this season when miami is a much improved team and players start wanting to go there again. Just like they did in Dallas and with the jets when he was there

AH yes... the staple, Parcells gets all the credit with what Wade does... So what happened to the Jets when Parcells left? Is that also his fault? Or only when the teams wins after Parcells is Parcells responsible...

 

[superpunk]

Even Romo has talked about how its more fun with Parcells around. Its great that Romo and Tnew can take the military style intimidation tactics that Parcells uses and respond to them.

The strict disciplinarian is an archtype of wartime. Parcells coaching heyday was in the 80s which was a whole generation before that. Most of the players during that time period had parents and coaches that were in the 20-40 range during the Vietnam war era. the archtype was much more prevalent and accepted as a teaching method.

Fast foward to the new millenium and the parents of the players are at the 20-40 range at the end of the Vietnam war era when anti war sentiment was at its peak or during a time where there was no war, no compulsory service and the like.

Most of the current players grew up in an environment where the harsh taskmaster wasn't an accepted archtype. You saw parents getting arrested for spanking there kids with Dr Spock saying be nice to your kids instead.

Saying Romo and Newman could deal with it and using that as a reason why everyone should be able to misses the forest for the sake of two trees.

Look at how vermeil, Dungy and Smith now perform. Look how Coughlin got his team to respond after changing his tactics. Heck look at how the Cowboys respond to Wade Phillips. its all there plain as day.

There are clearly different strokes for different folks.

When it comes to opinions on coaching, I'll go against the guy who has had a problem with almost every coach he's ever played for, almost every time.

But I will go with the guys who have never had any such issues. If you think there's any more to it than that - you're reading too much into it. When it comes to opinions on coaching, Terrell Owens' opinion doesn't hold much weight with me.

 

[khiladi]

There are clearly different strokes for different folks.

When it comes to opinions on coaching, I'll go against the guy who has had a problem with almost every coach he's ever played for, almost every time.

But I will go with the guys who have never had any such issues. If you think there's any more to it than that - you're reading too much into it. When it comes to opinions on coaching, Terrell Owens' opinion doesn't hold much weight with me.

I'll repeat again:

SO when TO said he wasn't being used correctly with BP and then Garrett comes along and TO explodes and has one of his best seasons ever, he wasn't correct in his assertion about the coaching? Garrett's offense put Tony Romo number 2 overall, next to Brady, who was having an NFL record year, and your going to argue TO wasn't correct in his assertion? How many of the main players were that different between the two offenses?

 

[superpunk]

I'll repeat again:

SO when TO said he wasn't being used correctly with BP and then Garrett comes along and TO explodes and has one of his best seasons ever, he wasn't correct in his assertion about the coaching? Garrett's offense put Tony Romo number 2 overall, next to Brady, who was having an NFL record year, and your going to argue TO wasn't correct in his assertion? How many of the main players were that different between the two offenses?

That has nothing to do with being in touch or out of touch with players. There could be any number of reasons, going from Tony Sparano to Garrett, a full year of Romo, Romo getting more experience, RG being shored up - in any case, none of that has any more relevance here than any of your other retorts.

When TO talks about clashing with coaches, most people should tune him out. Some people won't, because they agree with his take this time.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you have to use sentences to describe something so simple as someone being a better pick as opposed to a better player?

2 things w/ different meanings don't overlap, they can be used together, but using one does not automatically include the other, like saying better does not always infer something being more important

just 'fess up, and say, "hey, I was unclear w/ what I meant", instead of digging yourself in deeper

Dude better implies a hierarchy --good, better, best and all that-- and you can set any standard for said hierarchy.

if the hierarchy is based on importance then they are certainly interchangeable.

Parcells liked Spears better on that particular day.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are clearly different strokes for different folks.

When it comes to opinions on coaching, I'll go against the guy who has had a problem with almost every coach he's ever played for, almost every time.

But I will go with the guys who have never had any such issues. If you think there's any more to it than that - you're reading too much into it. When it comes to opinions on coaching, Terrell Owens' opinion doesn't hold much weight with me.

All i am saying is looking at 3 people all of which are polar and using that to judge is missing the forest for the sake of the trees.

look at a guy like Pat Watkins who had his confidence destroyed his rookie year or the general sentiment of the team which has been relayed to you over and over again.

 

[khiladi]

That has nothing to do with being in touch or out of touch with players. There could be any number of reasons, going from Tony Sparano to Garrett, a full year of Romo, Romo getting more experience, RG being shored up - in any case, none of that has any more relevance here than any of your other retorts.

Keep trying...

SO what happened when TO went down? Garrett and Romo were the consistent staple in the whole matter...

If performance has nothing to do with how a player reacts to a coach, pigs fly... And if performance on the field has nothing to do with being in-touch or out-of-touch with a player, then who really gives a damn about whether a coach is in-touch or out-of-touch with a player? Football is ultimately about performanceon the field, so if a coach places his relationship with a player above performance on the field, then the problem surely isn't the player...

A coach is subservient to performance, not the other way around. Coaches are measured by performance, not the other way around.... A coaches scheme is measured against how successful or not successful it is...

 

[khiladi]

All i am saying is looking at 3 people all of which are polar and using that to judge is missing the forest for the sake of the trees.

look at a guy like Pat Watkins who had his confidence destroyed his rookie year or the general sentiment of the team which has been relayed to you over and over again.

According to superpunk, the performance of a player on the field has nothing to do with the relationship that player has with a coach...