Did coach Parcell's take one for the team?

[CoCo]

A couple comments from those close to the situation have me really wondering what Parcells' assessment of this coaching transition would be...

I think it was Sparano who this week was quoted as saying that he and Parcells used to fight (my word) about how much rope to give Romo during games. Parcells instincts were always "close to the vest" while Sparano wanted to give Romo more opportunities to make plays. But there was an implication in that story that Parcells knew his own weakness (conservatism) and perhaps wanted Sparano to challenge him for the good of the team. Did he want that tension of conservative (himself) vs aggressive (Sparano) because he knew each had its place and that left to himself things would be overly conservative and not best for the team?

Did that same dynamic exist on defense without someone (the DC perhaps) to challenge him to turn the dogs loose a bit more? Was the result that there was no one to balance Parcells conservative nature and our defense became predictable as a result as has been quoted by players and opponents alike?

In Brad Sham's comments to KTCK (see thread) he cites Bill's awareness that his style would not be tolerated (my word) if the team wasn't winning. He knew he'd be perceived as an SOB because of his insistence on running all things his way. And yet, per Sham, Parcells chose that way because he believed it would lead to winning. He was willing to be perceived as the bad guy because he believed in the end the organization would be better for it.

Perhaps that is why Parcells had such a short life cycle in each of his stops. He knew his welcome would wear out. Maybe he even didn't like himself in that role and yet it was a personal sacrifice he was willing to make because he believed the organization would win.

I'm considering anew, this view of Parcells as a talented but tortured football coach. He confirmed at times that football is what he was born to do. He recognized that. He also believed that his call was to lead in a certain manner that ultimately would win and yet grate on most every step of the way. His gruff exterior said that didn't matter. But deep down it did matter, he knew that, and knew as well that his stays would be short-lived because in a sense Bill Parcells the person also could take only so much of Bill Parcells the coach.

I wonder too if Parcells didn't have a greater awareness of his own shortcomings (too conservative, too controlling) than he ever let on. I wonder if even that awareness was not enough to bring him into balance. Rather he needed that balance in the form of another person. Sparano was up to the task. He would fight him. Perhaps its even why he blocked Sparano from talking with the Saints under Payton. Perhaps Zimmer couldn't read between the lines and challenge the legend's strong but unbalanced hand on the defense.

I'm sure it still hurts Bill to hear the collective sighs of relief coming from various corners of VR these days. But I wonder if deep down he isn't fully aware of why they're sighing, a bit in agreement with them, and even glad himself to be away from BP the inflexible unbalanced taskmaster head coach.

I also wonder if Bill wasn't aware of his own shortcomings to the point that he felt what was really needed again for Bill Parcells the person (after 4 years of living with the tyrant of BP the coach) was also the best thing for the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[ndanger]

Interesting and well put,Thanks.

 

[David276]

yeah i was wondering about that, if he knew what he was doing all along with the conservative d and everything waiting for them to have enough experience before trying a more aggressive scheme .

 

[Hostile]

I believe Parcells always knew how draining his ways could be. Evidenced by the fact he told Jerry that very thing. I don't think that had anything to do with his retirement from coaching the Cowboys though. I really believe him when he said he just couldn't get the batteries charged to face the task ahead.

I'm a harsh critic of his results, but not his honesty.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Also, Jerry said in an interview on Galloway's radio program that Bill used to say all the time "Am I a dinosaur?" Bill was probably his biggest critic.

But I think the whole "conservative" stuff is more than a bit overblown. Football Outsiders put up numbers that showed that Parcells blitzed quite often. Only Bill Belichick was more aggressive on going for it on 4th down. Parcells just played the percentages. The impact on turnovers on the outcomes of games is an undeniable undeniable, statistical fact. The truth of the matter is, if we were more conservative in the Seattle playoff game we probably would have won it. We threw out of our endzone to Terry Glenn, he fumbles it on our own 5 yard line and it swung the game. When you're Parcells and you've seen hundreds and hundreds of games decided on plays like that, it probably makes you play a more managed style. I've yet to see any team's fan messageboard after a loss say "We were too aggressive". Nope, its always too conservative. Fans love being "aggressive" until it bites them in the butt, then aggression is suddenly labeled "that was just stupid".

 

[Doomsday101]

Also, Jerry said in an interview on Galloway's radio program that Bill used to say all the time "Am I a dinosaur?" Bill was probably his biggest critic.

But I think the whole "conservative" stuff is more than a bit overblown. Football Outsiders put up numbers that showed that Parcells blitzed quite often. Only Bill Belichick was more aggressive on going for it on 4th down. Parcells just played the percentages. The impact on turnovers on the outcomes of games is an undeniable undeniable, statistical fact. The truth of the matter is, if we were more conservative in the Seattle playoff game we probably would have won it. We threw out of our endzone to Terry Glenn, he fumbles it on our own 5 yard line and it swung the game. When you're Parcells and you've seen hundreds and hundreds of games decided on plays like that, it probably makes you play a more managed style. I've yet to see any team's fan messageboard after a loss say "We were too aggressive". Nope, its always too conservative. Fans love being "aggressive" until it bites them in the butt, then aggression is suddenly labeled "that was just stupid".

Very good post.

 

[BouncingCheese]

A couple comments from those close to the situation have me really wondering what Parcells' assessment of this coaching transition would be...

I think it was Sparano who this week was quoted as saying that he and Parcells used to fight (my word) about how much rope to give Romo during games. Parcells instincts were always "close to the vest" while Sparano wanted to give Romo more opportunities to make plays. But there was an implication in that story that Parcells knew his own weakness (conservatism) and perhaps wanted Sparano to challenge him for the good of the team. Did he want that tension of conservative (himself) vs aggressive (Sparano) because he knew each had its place and that left to himself things would be overly conservative and not best for the team?

Did that same dynamic exist on defense without someone (the DC perhaps) to challenge him to turn the dogs loose a bit more? Was the result that there was no one to balance Parcells conservative nature and our defense became predictable as a result as has been quoted by players and opponents alike?

In Brad Sham's comments to KTCK (see thread) he cites Bill's awareness that his style would not be tolerated (my word) if the team wasn't winning. He knew he'd be perceived as an SOB because of his insistence on running all things his way. And yet, per Sham, Parcells chose that way because he believed it would lead to winning. He was willing to be perceived as the bad guy because he believed in the end the organization would be better for it.

Perhaps that is why Parcells had such a short life cycle in each of his stops. He knew his welcome would wear out. Maybe he even didn't like himself in that role and yet it was a personal sacrifice he was willing to make because he believed the organization would win.

I'm considering anew, this view of Parcells as a talented but tortured football coach. He confirmed at times that football is what he was born to do. He recognized that. He also believed that his call was to lead in a certain manner that ultimately would win and yet grate on most every step of the way. His gruff exterior said that didn't matter. But deep down it did matter, he knew that, and knew as well that his stays would be short-lived because in a sense Bill Parcells the person also could take only so much of Bill Parcells the coach.

I wonder too if Parcells didn't have a greater awareness of his own shortcomings (too conservative, too controlling) than he ever let on. I wonder if even that awareness was not enough to bring him into balance. Rather he needed that balance in the form of another person. Sparano was up to the task. He would fight him. Perhaps its even why he blocked Sparano from talking with the Saints under Payton. Perhaps Zimmer couldn't read between the lines and challenge the legend's strong but unbalanced hand on the defense.

I'm sure it still hurts Bill to hear the collective sighs of relief coming from various corners of VR these days. But I wonder if deep down he isn't fully aware of why they're sighing, a bit in agreement with them, and even glad himself to be away from BP the inflexible unbalanced taskmaster head coach.

I also wonder if Bill wasn't aware of his own shortcomings to the point that he felt what was really needed again for Bill Parcells the person (after 4 years of living with the tyrant of BP the coach) was also the best thing for the Dallas Cowboys.

What a post.

 

[austintodallas]

Interesting hypothesis. You may be onto something.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

CoCo that was a very well thought out post and interesting read....thanks

 

[CoCo]

Also, Jerry said in an interview on Galloway's radio program that Bill used to say all the time "Am I a dinosaur?" Bill was probably his biggest critic.

But I think the whole "conservative" stuff is more than a bit overblown. Football Outsiders put up numbers that showed that Parcells blitzed quite often. Only Bill Belichick was more aggressive on going for it on 4th down. Parcells just played the percentages. The impact on turnovers on the outcomes of games is an undeniable undeniable, statistical fact. The truth of the matter is, if we were more conservative in the Seattle playoff game we probably would have won it. We threw out of our endzone to Terry Glenn, he fumbles it on our own 5 yard line and it swung the game. When you're Parcells and you've seen hundreds and hundreds of games decided on plays like that, it probably makes you play a more managed style. I've yet to see any team's fan messageboard after a loss say "We were too aggressive". Nope, its always too conservative. Fans love being "aggressive" until it bites them in the butt, then aggression is suddenly labeled "that was just stupid".

I agree the conservative label is overblown. Conservative probably wasn't the right word. Maybe "stuck in his ways" is better. And it fits with the "I'm a dinosaur" description Parcells gave of himself. "Predictable" on defense, as stated by opponents (Detroit?) is also the more accurate term, moreso than conservative.

I agree the Cowboys offense was anything but conservative. We did often go on 4th down although I think that was often predicated upon our lack of reliable FG kicking, and confidence in our D at their end of the field, and field position that frankly risked little unless you assumed we could down a punt inside the 10.

Even so, I think Sparano's "fight" comments are worth noting. He strongly implied I thought that the end result was a hybrid of he and Parcells and it makes me wonder given Zimmer's 3-4 inexperience and the intimidating figure that was Parcells if that wasn't part of our defense resultingly being tipped towards the prehistoric side and resultantly, predictable.

Again, "predictable" is what some opponents called our defense. What exactly did they mean? I don't know. Its certainly possible to blitz and at the same time be predictable.

 

[CoCo]

I believe Parcells always knew how draining his ways could be. Evidenced by the fact he told Jerry that very thing. I don't think that had anything to do with his retirement from coaching the Cowboys though. I really believe him when he said he just couldn't get the batteries charged to face the task ahead.

I'm a harsh critic of his results, but not his honesty.

My original post is a little fuzzy on some things. I didn't intend it to be that long when I started it and as a result I think its a bit jumbled on some things.

I agree with you that Parcells at least in part retired again because he couldn't get the batteries charged. I think that's an honest assessment. He talked about that inevitability even when he signed on in 2003.

It was also often discussed that Parcells didn't seem to have the same passion and fire during his tenure here. His disappointments seemed to manifest more as resignation than anger which was his more traditional response.

Yeah, that kind be linked to lack of energy. But I also wonder if part of it is linked to a knowing, deep down, that something was missing. From the team, or the players, or that in combination with his approach. At times I kind of got the sense that Bill felt he had tried everything he knew how to and just couldn't get this team over the hump. And I wonder if at times, he didn't start to question whether he was part of the problem. Not all, not even majority. But perhaps a part. Or maybe he just knew that his tank was so empty that the ingredient he knew he had to supply he just didn't have the energy to give anymore if he even possessed it.

The other part of Bill thats well-chronicled but not evident daily was his love for his players. I wonder in some ways if Bill isn't excited to step out of the way in hopes that someone new can give those guys what they need to get over the hump.

People often assume the old coach might feel threatened by the possibility the new guy could outperform him. I wonder if Bill doesn't have some excitement around getting a new guy as HC with the energy and expertise to get his players over the hump.

Lots of speculation on my part. But it arose out of recent comments made about those in proximity to Parcells. FWIW.

 

[JPM]

Also, Jerry said in an interview on Galloway's radio program that Bill used to say all the time "Am I a dinosaur?" Bill was probably his biggest critic.

But I think the whole "conservative" stuff is more than a bit overblown. Football Outsiders put up numbers that showed that Parcells blitzed quite often. Only Bill Belichick was more aggressive on going for it on 4th down. Parcells just played the percentages. The impact on turnovers on the outcomes of games is an undeniable undeniable, statistical fact. The truth of the matter is, if we were more conservative in the Seattle playoff game we probably would have won it. We threw out of our endzone to Terry Glenn, he fumbles it on our own 5 yard line and it swung the game. When you're Parcells and you've seen hundreds and hundreds of games decided on plays like that, it probably makes you play a more managed style. I've yet to see any team's fan messageboard after a loss say "We were too aggressive". Nope, its always too conservative. Fans love being "aggressive" until it bites them in the butt, then aggression is suddenly labeled "that was just stupid".

Great post IR.

 

[Hostile]

My original post is a little fuzzy on some things. I didn't intend it to be that long when I started it and as a result I think its a bit jumbled on some things.

I agree with you that Parcells at least in part retired again because he couldn't get the batteries charged. I think that's an honest assessment. He talked about that inevitability even when he signed on in 2003.

It was also often discussed that Parcells didn't seem to have the same passion and fire during his tenure here. His disappointments seemed to manifest more as resignation than anger which was his more traditional response.

Yeah, that kind be linked to lack of energy. But I also wonder if part of it is linked to a knowing, deep down, that something was missing. From the team, or the players, or that in combination with his approach. At times I kind of got the sense that Bill felt he had tried everything he knew how to and just couldn't get this team over the hump. And I wonder if at times, he didn't start to question whether he was part of the problem. Not all, not even majority. But perhaps a part. Or maybe he just knew that his tank was so empty that the ingredient he knew he had to supply he just didn't have the energy to give anymore if he even possessed it.

The other part of Bill thats well-chronicled but not evident daily was his love for his players. I wonder in some ways if Bill isn't excited to step out of the way in hopes that someone new can give those guys what they need to get over the hump.

People often assume the old coach might feel threatened by the possibility the new guy could outperform him. I wonder if Bill doesn't have some excitement around getting a new guy as HC with the energy and expertise to get his players over the hump.

Lots of speculation on my part. But it arose out of recent comments made about those in proximity to Parcells. FWIW.

I thought your post was pretty clear. There was all kinds of speculation about why Parcells retired. I think the easiest thing to grasp hold of is that he simply told the truth. It would be easy to assume that his players did not like him based on their comments about the appreciation for the change. I think that is a mistake. I believe the players really liked him a lot. Were they afraid of him? Sure, but I doubt it went as far as disliking him.

Ultimately I just think it is what it is. Parcells just becomes absolutely absorbed into the job and keeps everyone and everything at a fever pitch. After time that wears everyone down, even him.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I agree the conservative label is overblown. Conservative probably wasn't the right word. Maybe "stuck in his ways" is better. And it fits with the "I'm a dinosaur" description Parcells gave of himself. "Predictable" on defense, as stated by opponents (Detroit?) is also the more accurate term, moreso than conservative.

I definitely think that he had a formula that he believed in and stuck with it. I do think Zimmer's inexperience in the 3-4 hurt, and I'm not a Zimmer basher. I think maybe the biggest reason that Parcells didn't succeed is that he wasn't able to bring in one of "his guys" on defense. "His guys" weren't available because they were all taking head coaching gigs. I do think we were predictable at the end on defense, but the defense was such a cluster-F at that point and players were missing so many assignments that I'm sure the last thing Parcells wanted to do was throw in a bunch of new wrinkles.

This defense's ability to just absolutely loose their heads and completely unravel under adversity is still my biggest worry for the team. When they finally got their heads on screwed straight for the Seattle game, they were once again a good defense. If not for that 9 point swing from the Terry Glenn fumble, the defense essentially shut down Seattle in their home stadium. You would think Holmgren would be able to pick apart a predictable defense, wouldn't you? Funny how a predictable defense can still be a good one when the players do their jobs and execute.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

I believe Parcells always knew how draining his ways could be. Evidenced by the fact he told Jerry that very thing. I don't think that had anything to do with his retirement from coaching the Cowboys though. I really believe him when he said he just couldn't get the batteries charged to face the task ahead.

I'm a harsh critic of his results, but not his honesty.

I agree. I think if we had kept playing like we did at around Thanksgiving he would have stuck around. I mean, he always said that you don't really judge a team until after Thanksgiving. And I think at that point we were probably the best team in the NFC. He had Romo, a strong defense that shut down most teams we faced, including the eventual SB champs. Then it fizzled.

I think it took the energy out of everyone, the fans, the players, the coaches. I mean, even though we had hopes for winning in Seattle. Deep down most of us had a feeling with our style of play it was done.

I don't know the inner workings of Parcells practices, etc. But I can imagine he had pulled out almost all the stops to get the team motivated. I think at some point it just didn't work anymore.



Regarding the DC situation as a counter balance like he had with Sporano...

I think that my well be true. First of all, I don't think that Mike Zimmer felt like he had real job security. He wasn't one of Parcells guys, even though Parcells kept him as a hold over. He wasn't comfortable with the 3-4. And I think those things were reflected in Mike Zimmer not somehow challenging some of Parcells methods.

HOWEVER, if you look at Parcells when he had his most success (with Belichick), it was not only the security Belichick probably felt, it was also a philospophical difference. Sure it would have been great to have Zimmer challenge Parcells a little bit more, but that defense we ran last year had alot of Zimmer's traits in it. Belichick's 3-4 is a bit more aggressive and tailroed to counter what the offense throws at you...

Zimmer was always a read and react type of guy. Bend but don't break. That's essentially what Parcells wants out of his players as well. So just from defensive philosphies, there wasn't much room to challenge.

And like I said, I think Zimmer also lacked the experience in the 3-4 needed to challenge a guy like Bill Parcells, who is probably going to the HOF.

 

[zeromaster]

I doubt you'll see any post that poised on say, ExtremeSkins.

Now, back to the pre-game libations. :toast:

 

[Big Dakota]

Ask his Ex-Wife and kids how big a departure the "Tyrant coach" Bill is from the every day Bill.

 

[WarDaddy]

A couple comments from those close to the situation have me really wondering what Parcells' assessment of this coaching transition would be...

I think it was Sparano who this week was quoted as saying that he and Parcells used to fight (my word) about how much rope to give Romo during games. Parcells instincts were always "close to the vest" while Sparano wanted to give Romo more opportunities to make plays. But there was an implication in that story that Parcells knew his own weakness (conservatism) and perhaps wanted Sparano to challenge him for the good of the team. Did he want that tension of conservative (himself) vs aggressive (Sparano) because he knew each had its place and that left to himself things would be overly conservative and not best for the team?

Did that same dynamic exist on defense without someone (the DC perhaps) to challenge him to turn the dogs loose a bit more? Was the result that there was no one to balance Parcells conservative nature and our defense became predictable as a result as has been quoted by players and opponents alike?

In Brad Sham's comments to KTCK (see thread) he cites Bill's awareness that his style would not be tolerated (my word) if the team wasn't winning. He knew he'd be perceived as an SOB because of his insistence on running all things his way. And yet, per Sham, Parcells chose that way because he believed it would lead to winning. He was willing to be perceived as the bad guy because he believed in the end the organization would be better for it.

Perhaps that is why Parcells had such a short life cycle in each of his stops. He knew his welcome would wear out. Maybe he even didn't like himself in that role and yet it was a personal sacrifice he was willing to make because he believed the organization would win.

I'm considering anew, this view of Parcells as a talented but tortured football coach. He confirmed at times that football is what he was born to do. He recognized that. He also believed that his call was to lead in a certain manner that ultimately would win and yet grate on most every step of the way. His gruff exterior said that didn't matter. But deep down it did matter, he knew that, and knew as well that his stays would be short-lived because in a sense Bill Parcells the person also could take only so much of Bill Parcells the coach.

I wonder too if Parcells didn't have a greater awareness of his own shortcomings (too conservative, too controlling) than he ever let on. I wonder if even that awareness was not enough to bring him into balance. Rather he needed that balance in the form of another person. Sparano was up to the task. He would fight him. Perhaps its even why he blocked Sparano from talking with the Saints under Payton. Perhaps Zimmer couldn't read between the lines and challenge the legend's strong but unbalanced hand on the defense.

I'm sure it still hurts Bill to hear the collective sighs of relief coming from various corners of VR these days. But I wonder if deep down he isn't fully aware of why they're sighing, a bit in agreement with them, and even glad himself to be away from BP the inflexible unbalanced taskmaster head coach.

I also wonder if Bill wasn't aware of his own shortcomings to the point that he felt what was really needed again for Bill Parcells the person (after 4 years of living with the tyrant of BP the coach) was also the best thing for the Dallas Cowboys.

Wow...

 

[juck]

BP was a superstitious,stubborn old Italian man,trust me having many of them in my family,his ways were the way or the highway.

 

[FLcowboy]

Kind of hard to believe the guy knew his shortcomings, and yet refused to adjust for his sake, and the team's. If, as you say, he always had this death wish, then I'm surprised that he was able to maintain his legacy to the point he was still considered a viable option for Jerry Jones. It would seem that the myth was bigger than the man.