DMN Blog: When Bill Parcells knew it was over *Merge*

[Vintage]

Any supposedly effort by Parcells to blame Romo for that screwup is dumb & frankly I don't believe Parcells really said it. Romo didn't cause Glenn to screw up on an earlier play and does anybody really think our defense could have stopped the Seahawks on the next drive. Besides it brings into question why Parcells didn't perform due diligence and replace his starting QB as the holder by the backup Bledsoe or former holder Crayton. That's the achilles heal which Parcells should be forced to address but of course only a real intelligent football fan/analyst is smart enough to ask Parcells that question & wouldn't settle for his reply that Romo hadn't had a problem before or maybe there was nobody else or maybe why didn't he have the balls to ask Bledsoe whose job it should have been (or someone else on the team) to take over that job. Romo should have been on the sidelines talking with whoever was the OC about what next steps the offense should take when they get on the field. Not trying to catch a shiny football which forced the NFL to change their "shiny" football rule.

What's done is done.

Romo had been the holder because he was the backup QB. Parcells didn't want to change holders midseason. My guess is most teams don't want to either. It could mess with the special teams. They developed a rythym over training camp, preseason, etc.

This would have been a non-issue had Romo just hung on.

He didn't.

So now, it gets discussed.

Romo dropped the ball; its on him, not Parcells, Seattle, or the shiny ball.

We need to move on.

 

[iceberg]

If you don't have respect for Bill Parcells, you're not a Dallas Cowboys fan. That guy did everything with every intent to make the team better.

He even fought off Jerry's impulsive urge to play Henskunk.

We fans owe a lot to Bill Parcells.

campo and gaily did everything with every intent to make them better too.

 

[Romo2Dez4six]

when he was hired . sorry guys did not like him at all

 

[theebs]

campo and gaily did everything with every intent to make them better too.

Ok?

but they didnt. Whats your point?

neither of those coaches could assemble a viable roster. Nor could they go into the draft room and bring in talent.

 

[superpunk]

Interesting thread.

Would read again.

 

[miamicowboy21]

Ok?

but they didnt. Whats your point?

neither of those coaches could assemble a viable roster. Nor could they go into the draft room and bring in talent.

Do you think either of these coaches had the influence or they say so in the draft room the way parcells did?

Jerry jones ran the entire draft in the campo/gailey era.

 

[AbeBeta]

I call it like i see it. The guy also held us hostage for 3 weeks after that game. He wanted more money and an extension from jerry which was denied, meanwhile other coaches were being scooped up. Parcells has always been about one person, himself.

Takes two to hold hostage. Jerry could have simply fired him. Instead, he let Bill take the time to make a decision.

These are the guys that got "scooped up": Bobby Petrino, Ken Wisenhunt, Cam Cameron, Lane Kiffin, and Mike Tomlin. Wow. We really missed out by waiting.

Jerry hired the guy he really wanted to in Jason Garrett.

 

[iceberg]

Ok?

but they didnt. Whats your point?

neither of those coaches could assemble a viable roster. Nor could they go into the draft room and bring in talent.

my point is pretty simple if you also read who i was replying to. based on the criteria ben listed, pretty much all nfl coaches fall into that category. wanting to win and doing all they can to do so.

my point (eventually) was that intent wasn't enough for those coaches either. yes parcells left us a better team. only those bored or with hate-ons would argue that point. but the arguing continues over things that cannot be changed. bored people do interesting things.

 

[bootsy]

I don't know how anyone can watch that replay and conclude anything other than he was clearly short of the marker. His feet on the ground clearly mark his progress and Seattle (Tatupu I think) stood him straight up so there was no lean available. I just don't think it was anywhere near debateable.

It hurts because the original mark gave it to him, but the re-spotting was justified IMO.

If I can remember that play I believe the refs didn't measure for the 1st down either and instead went directly to replay. I still don't know how they determined he didn't get the first down after it was ruled on the field as a 1st. That play made me so mad.